Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05713/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05713-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

JAMES C. HARRISON, State Bar No. 161958

MARGARET R. PRINZING, State Bar No. 209482

REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP

1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1550 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Phone: (510) 346-6200 

Fax: (510) 346-6201 

Email: harrison@rjp.com 

 mprinzing@rjp.com 

Attorneys for Interveners 

Daphne Phung and Chris Kelly 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., 

Defendants.

No.: C 12-5713 TEH

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case Management Conference: 

Date: July 18, 2016 

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Crtrm.: 12

(The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson) 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

1

1. Introduction and Summary

All parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management Statement (JCMS), as required 

by this Court’s March 9, 2016 order (Dkt. No. 122). This JCMS supplements the JCMS previously 

filed by the parties on March 30, 2015 (Dkt. No. 113), October 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 117), and March 9, 

2016 (Dkt. No. 121). 

This Court’s October 26, 2015 order declared that the provisions of state law at issue in 

this case are unconstitutional but deferred entry of final judgment to allow Intervenors to continue 

pursuing legislation that may resolve this matter. Dkt. No. 119 at 1. As discussed below, Intervenors 

are still continuing to pursue that legislation and expect that the State Assembly will take further action 

on that legislation shortly. 

The parties therefore request that the Court continue this matter until on or around 

Monday October 10, 2016 for a further case management conference. 

2. Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed this class-action lawsuit in 2012, challenging the portions of the newly 

enacted Proposition 35 that required all persons who must register under California Penal Code 

section 290 because they have been convicted of sex-related offenses to provide to police their Internet 

identifiers and the names of their Internet service providers. This Court granted a temporary 

restraining order, halting enforcement of the law and then a preliminary injunction, prohibiting 

Defendant from enforcing the challenged portions of the initiative. Dkt. Nos. 36, 78. 

After Defendant and Intervenors appealed, this Court stayed the matter pending 

resolution of the appeal at the request of the parties. Dkt. No. 100 (2/25/2013). The Ninth Circuit 

affirmed this Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction on November 18, 2014, and remanded 

the case back to this Court for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 105; see Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 

(9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on January 2, 2015. Dkt. No. 107. 

As set forth in the parties’ prior JCMS, Intervenors then requested a stay of the case to 

pursue legislation in the California state legislature to address the Court’s concerns about the portions 

of Proposition 35 at issue here. The Court stayed the proceedings until September 15, 2015, set this 

matter for a case management conference on October 26, 2015, and instructed the parties to file an 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

2

updated case management statement “setting forth the terms of any finalized legislation that may 

resolve the issues in this matter, as well as the parties’ positions on whether such legislation does in 

fact resolve the issues and how to proceed to a final disposition of the case.” Dkt. No. 115 at 2. 

On June 17, 2015, California Senator Ben Hueso introduced amendments to SB 448 to 

address this Court and the Ninth Circuit’s constitutional concerns regarding Proposition 35. On 

September 1, 2015, the Senate approved SB 448, but the Assembly was unable to vote on SB 448 

before the session closed on September 11, 2015. 

On October 26, 2015, by the parties’ stipulation, this Court lifted the stay, declared that 

the provisions of state law at issue are unconstitutional, and deferred entry of final judgment “for a 

further reasonable time to allow Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve this 

matter.” Dkt. No. 119 at 1-2. That Order also requires the parties to update the Court if it becomes 

apparent that the legislation will or will not be enacted and provides that they will not seek to extend 

this case beyond the 2015-2016 legislative session. Id. at 2. 

Intervenors continue to pursue legislation. SB 448 was approved by the Senate on 

September 21, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the Assembly approved amendments to SB 448 proposed by 

Senator Hueso and referred the bill to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. On June 23, 2016, 

the Assembly Committee on Public Safety approved SB 448 with additional amendments. Intervenors 

anticipate that the Assembly will vote on the measure shortly.

The current version of SB 448 would not go into effect until January 1, 2017, and would 

only apply to certain persons who are convicted of a felony on or after January 1, 2017. The parties 

agree that if enacted in its current form, the new legislation would likely moot this litigation.

Plaintiffs also wish to advise the Court that Plaintiff Doe passed away at age 78 

following a long illness. They ask that this be noted on the record and that the action proceed in favor 

of the remaining plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(2), as indicated in the proposed 

order.1

 

 

1

 “After a party’s death, if the right sought to be enforced survives only to or against the remaining 

parties, the action does not abate, but proceeds in favor of or against the remaining parties. The death 

should be noted on the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(2). 

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

3

3. The Parties’ Request

For these reasons, the parties request that the Court continue this matter until on or around 

October 10, 2016, otherwise keeping the provisions of its October 26, 2015 order in effect. 

DATED: July 7, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Michael T. Risher

Attorney for Plaintiffs

 /s/ Robert D. Wilson

 Attorney for Defendant 

 /s/ Margaret R. Prinzing

Attorney for Interveners

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

4

[PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a case management conference on July 18, 2016. 

Intervenors have requested additional time to pursue their legislation that may resolve this matter, as 

discussed in this Court’s October 26, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 119). 

Pursuant to stipulation, and for good cause, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1) Entry of final judgment is deferred to allow for a further reasonable time to 

enable Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve this matter.

2) A further case management conference shall be held on October 17, 2016 at 

1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 12. The parties shall file an updated joint case 

management statement no later than seven days prior to the case management 

conference, providing an update as to the status of Intervenors’ proposed 

legislation and setting forth the parties’ views as to the implications for 

disposition of this case. 

3) At any juncture during which this case remains pending and it becomes apparent 

that Intervenors’ efforts to pass legislation are either successful or not 

successful, the parties will provide a joint update to the Court.

4) The parties shall meet and confer prior to seeking entry of final judgment or 

bringing any motion.

5) The parties will not seek to extend this case beyond the current 2015-2016 

legislative session. 

6) Plaintiff Doe had died. The action will proceed in favor of the remaining 

Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________ _____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON

7/12/2016

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 5 of 6
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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER – 

NO. C 12-5713 TEH

5

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I declare that concurrence in the filing of this document 

has been obtained from each of the other signatories. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct.

Executed on July 7, 2016, in Oakland, California. 

 /s/ Margaret R. Prinzing

Attorney for Interveners

(00281045)

Case 3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document 125 Filed 07/13/16 Page 6 of 6