Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00443/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00443-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page

number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.

2

 Under the “mailbox rule,” Mr. Pickard filed his motion for reconsideration on June 15,

2011 because that is when he placed the motion in institutional mail. See, e.g., Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 286, 270-71 (1988); Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003); Proof of

Service, ECF No. 39-1 at 2.

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 10-05253 LB

AMENDED ORDER TRANSFERRING

CASE TO DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AND DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 39]

The court previously transferred this FOIA case to the Eastern District of Virginia because venue

was improper here. See 6/7/11 Order, ECF No. 38, at 2, 5 (holding that venue was proper in the

Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Arizona).1

 On June 15, 2011,2 Plaintiff William

Pickard timely asked the court to reconsider its ruling that venue was improper here. Motion for

Reconsideration, ECF No. 39. In the alternative, he asked to transfer the case to the District of

Arizona. The government does not object to transfer to the District of Arizona instead of the Eastern

District of Virginia. Response, ECF No. 41. Accordingly, the court amends its prior order to

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 42 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 10-05253 LB

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

transfer the case to the District of Arizona instead (and to this extent only, grants Mr. Pickard's

motion for reconsideration).

Mr. Pickard also asked for certification of an interlocutory appeal only if the court denied his

motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona instead of the Eastern District of Virginia. The

court thus denies the motion for certification as moot. The court otherwise denies Mr. Pickard's

motion for reconsideration, having already considered and rejected the general arguments in its prior

order at ECF No. 38.

This disposes of ECF No. 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2011 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00443-DCB Document 42 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 2