Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01791/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-md-01791-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

626326.1 STIP. RE VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 (VRW) 

Elizabeth J. Cabraser (State Bar No. 083151) 

Barry R. Himmelstein (State Bar No. 157736) 

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857) 

Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260) 

Allison S. Elgart (State Bar No. 241901) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Interim Class Counsel for MCI Class 

[Additional Counsel Appear On Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(San Francisco Division) 

IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY 

AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

RECORDS LITIGATION 

___________________________________ 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

All Class Actions Against the MCI and 

Verizon Defendants; Bready, et al. v. 

Verizon Maryland (No. 06-06313); 

Chulsky, et al. v. Cellco Partnership dba 

Verizon Wireless (No. 06-06570); and 

Riordan, et al. v. Verizon Communications

(No. 06-3574) 

MDL Docket No. 06-1791 (VRW) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR 

VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

 Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor 

 Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 346 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 5
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 

626326.1 - 1 - STIP. RE VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 (VRW) 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, by order dated March 22, 2007, the Court granted the Government’s 

opposed motion to extend and set a briefing and hearing schedule on dispositive motions in cases 

asserting claims against the Verizon defendants. (Dkt. No. 217); 

WHEREAS, on April 20, 2007, the United States filed an unclassified 

memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on state secrets 

grounds (Dkt. Nos. 253-257); 

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007, the Verizon defendants filed amotion to dismiss 

the Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. No. 125); a motion to dismiss the Chulsky, Riordan, 

and Bready complaints (Dkt. No. 270-271); and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 268-269); 

WHEREAS, under the schedule set by the Court in its March 22, 2007 Order, 

Plaintiffs have until May 24, 2007, to file their oppositions to the foregoing motions; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desire additional time to respond to the foregoing motions, 

which would require an adjustment of the June 21, 2007 hearing date; 

WHEREAS the Government and Verizon Defendants previously sought to work 

cooperatively on a schedule in the Verizon cases and are willing to consent to this requested 

extension; 

WHEREAS, the parties are advised that the Court is not available to hear the 

foregoing motions at a later date until August 9, 2007, and is not available to hear the foregoing 

motions on August 23, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, counsel for the Verizon defendants and the United States have 

scheduling conflicts that preclude resetting the hearings for August 9, 2007 or the week of 13-17, 

2007; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL 

 OF THE COURT, THAT: 

(1) Plaintiffs shall have until June 22, 2007 to file their oppositions to the 

foregoing motions; 

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 346 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 5
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 

626326.1 - 2 - STIP. RE VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 (VRW) 

(2) The Verizon defendants and the United States shall have until August 3, 

2007 to file their reply briefs in support of the foregoing motions; 

(3) The foregoing motions will be heard on August 30, 2007; 

(4) The United States’ administrative motion for leave to file a 58-page 

redacted opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 258) is granted, nunc pro 

tunc; 

(5) The MCI and Verizon class plaintiffs shall have a total of 108 pages for 

their oppositions to the United States’ motion to dismiss and the Verizon defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint; 

(6) The Verizon defendants shall have 40 pages for their reply in support of 

their motion to dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint; 

(7) The page limit for the United States’ reply in support of its motion to 

dismiss will be addressed by separate stipulation or, if necessary, motion; and 

(8) The length of other briefs shall remain as governed by applicable rules. 

Dated: May 22, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

By: \s\ Barry R. Himmelstein 

Barry R. Himmelstein 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Interim Class Counsel for MCI Class 

By: \s\ Jodi W. Flowers 

Jodi W. Flowers 

MOTLEY RICE, LLC 

Interim Class Counsel for Verizon Class 

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 346 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 5
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 

626326.1 - 3 - STIP. RE VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 (VRW) 

By: \s\ Ann Brick 

Ann Brick 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Riordan, et al. v. 

Verizon Communications, Inc.

By: \s\ John A. Rogovin 

John A. Rogovin 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

Attorneys for Verizon Defendants 

By: \s\ Anthony J. Coppolino 

Anthony J. Coppolino 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

By: \s\ Joshua G. Whitaker 

Joshua G. Whitaker 

GRIFFIN WHITAKER LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Bready, et al. v. 

Verizon Maryland, Inc. 

By: \s\ David H. Sternlieb 

David H. Sternlieb 

SHAPIRO & STERNLIEB, LLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Chulsky, et al. v. 

Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Jodi W. Flowers, Ann Brick, John A. Rogovin, 

Anthony J. Coppolino, Joshua G. Whitaker, and David H. Sternlieb. 

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 346 Filed 08/09/07 Page 4 of 5
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 

626326.1 - 4 - STIP. RE VERIZON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

MDL DOCKET NO. 06-1791 (VRW) 

PROPOSED ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation (1) – (8), IT IS SO ORDERED. The motions 

that are the subject of the stipulation will be heard on August 30, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. 

Dated: May __, 2007 ________________________________________ 

 Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 

 United States District Chief Judge 

August 9, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:06-md-01791-VRW Document 346 Filed 08/09/07 Page 5 of 5