Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DATE OF HEARING 

FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

CASE NO. C 06 1793 JF RS 

373738.01 

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

JON B. STREETER - #101970 

WENDY J. THURM - #163558 

AJAY S. KRISHNAN - #222476 

KATHERINE FLOREY - # 241647 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

E-mail: jstreeter@kvn.com 

ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

ALAN SCHLOSSER - #49957 

MICHAEL RISHER - #191627 

1663 Mission, Suite 460 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Facsimile: (415) 255-1478 

E-mail: aschlosser@aclunc.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation; EDDIE YLST, Acting Warden 

for the California State Prison at San Quentin, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. C 06 1793 JF RS 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER CONTINUING DATE OF 

HEARING FOR DEFENDANTS’ 

RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

 

**E-filed 5/26/06**

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 34 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DATE OF HEARING 

FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

CASE NO. C 06 1793 JF RS 

373738.01 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties, by their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that 

the hearing on Defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) motion, currently 

scheduled for July 13, 2006, be continued to July 19, 2006, at a time to be set, below, by the 

Court. This stipulation does not affect the briefing schedule for Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion. 

The basis for this stipulation is as follows: 

1. On March 28, 2006, Defendants moved to enlarge time to file an answer or other 

responsive pleading. At that time, Defendants’ deadline for filing an answer or other responsive 

pleading was March 29, 2006. On April 3, 2006, the Court granted Defendants’ motion, and 

established the following briefing and hearing schedule for Defendants’ motion to dismiss: 

• Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss not later than May 30, 2006 

• Plaintiff shall file its opposition brief not later than June 20, 2006 

• Defendants shall file their reply brief not later than June 27, 2006 

• The Court will hear oral argument at 1:30 p.m. on July 13, 2006 

See Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Time to File Responsive Pleading, 2. 

2. The hearing date established by the Court imposes a substantial burden on 

counsel for Plaintiff Pacific News Service. Wendy J. Thurm, the PNS attorney responsible 

briefing and argument on the 12(b)(6) motion, will be on vacation for twelve days in early July. 

This vacation was scheduled prior to the Court’s April 3, 2006 order setting the hearing date. 

Rescheduling or canceling the vacation to accommodate the July 13 hearing date would pose a 

substantial burden to Ms. Thurm. 

3. Based on telephone calls with the Court’s chambers and Dane Gillette, counsel 

for Defendants, it was learned that the Court, Mr. Gillette, and Ms. Thurm will all be available 

for a hearing on the Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the afternoon of July 19, 2006. 

4. The only other timing modification in this case is that at the commencement of 

this action, PNS filed a motion to shorten time on its contemporaneously filed (1) motion to 

relate this action to Morales v. Woodford, Case No. 05-219, and (2) motion to consolidate this 

action with Morales. That motion to shorten time was precipitated by the imminent evidentiary 

hearing in the Morales litigation. The motion to shorten time was granted. 

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 34 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DATE OF HEARING 

FOR DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

CASE NO. C 06 1793 JF RS 

373738.01 

5. The instant stipulated request to continue the hearing date for Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss from July 13, 2006, to July 19, 2006 will have no foreseeable impact on the 

schedule for this case. 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the hearing 

on Defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will be 

continued to the afternoon of July 19, 2006, at a time to be set by the Court. 

The time of the hearing shall be __________ p.m. 

Dated: May 25, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ Wendy J. Thurm 

WENDY J. THURM 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE 

Dated: May 25, 2006 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

By: /s/ Dane R. Gillette 

DANE R. GILLETTE 

Attorneys for Defendants 

JAMES E. TILTON and EDDIE YLST 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________, 2006 

By: __________________________________

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1:30 5/26/06

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 34 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3