Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-xr-90225/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-xr-90225-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Fainaru-Wada
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Lance Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW 

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 

Jonathan R. Donnellan (Pro Hac Vice) 

Kristina E. Findikyan (Pro Hac Vice) 

Eve B. Burton (Pro Hac Vice) 

THE HEARST CORPORATION 

1345 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor 

New York, New York 10105 

Telephone: (212) 649-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 649-2035 

Email: Jdonnellan@hearst.com 

Floyd Abrams (Pro Hac Vice) 

Susan Buckley (Pro Hac Vice) 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP

80 Pine Street 

New York, NY 10005-1702 

Telephone: (212) 701-3000 

Facsimile: (212) 269-5420 

Email: Sbuckley@cahill.com 

Gregory P. Lindstrom (Bar No. 082334) 

Steven M. Bauer (Bar No. 135067) 

Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111-2562 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 

Email: Gregory.Lindstrom@lw.com 

 

Attorneys for Movants 

MARK FAINARU-WADA and 

LANCE WILLIAMS 

[Additional counsel listed on following page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

 GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS TO 

 MARK FAINARU-WADA 

 AND LANCE WILLIAMS 

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION OF BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:06-xr-90225-JSW Document 83 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 5
2

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW 

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 

Christopher J. Morvillo (Pro Hac Vice) 

MORVILLO, ABRAMOWITZ, GRAND, 

IASON, ANELLO & BOHRER, P.C. 

565 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 856-9600 

Facsimile: (212) 856-9494 

Email: Cmorvillo@magislaw.com 

Attorneys for Movants 

MARK FAINARU-WADA and 

LANCE WILLIAMS 

Case 3:06-xr-90225-JSW Document 83 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 5
1

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW

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 

Pursuant to Criminal Local Rule 2-1 and Civil Local Rule 7-11, movants Mark 

Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams respectfully file the instant administrative motion to clarify 

the due date for filing of movants’ reply brief in support of their Motion for Clarification of the 

Court’s August 15, 2006 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. This motion is 

unopposed, as the government has a reply brief due on the same schedule as movants in support 

of its separate Motion for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt. 

At the teleconference held on September 7, 2006, and as reflected in the Civil 

Minute Order of even date, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on the Motion for 

Clarification prior to the filing of the government’s opposition papers, but otherwise did not alter 

the hearing date set for September 21, 2006 or the briefing schedule in place pursuant to 

Criminal Local Rule 47-2. 

Criminal Local Rule 47-2 requires that opposition papers be filed not less than 

seven calendar days before the date set for hearing and that reply papers be filed not less than 

four calendar days before the date set for hearing. Crim. L. R. 47-2(d). As the hearing on the 

Motion for Clarification is set for Thursday, September 21, 2006, the reply papers are thereby 

due on Sunday, September 17, 2006. Movants interpret Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 

6(a)—which operates to exclude Saturdays and Sundays from time calculations such that “the 

period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days”—as 

making Monday, September 18, 2006 the due date for the reply papers. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(a). 

The government concurs, and similarly interprets Rule 6(a) as providing the government until 

Monday, September 18 to file reply papers in support of its separate Motion for an Order to 

Show Cause re: Contempt. Given that there is no known authority on point concretely applying 

Rule 6(a) in situations where local rules measure deadlines backward from the hearing date (see 

Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL 

(The Rutter Group 2006), 12:102.7), and in an abundance of caution, movants respectfully file 

the instant motion for the Court’s clarification and confirmation that the reply papers are due on 

Monday, September 18. 

/// 

Case 3:06-xr-90225-JSW Document 83 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 5
2

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW 

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 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 13, 2006 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

 Gregory P. Lindstrom 

 Steven M. Bauer 

 Sadik Huseny 

By /S/ 

Gregory P. Lindstrom 

Attorneys for Movants 

MARK FAINARU-WADA and 

LANCE WILLIAMS 

Case 3:06-xr-90225-JSW Document 83 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 5
3

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. CR 06-90225-MISC JSW 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 The Court having considered the Administrative Motion for Clarification of 

Briefing Schedule and the arguments raised therein, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

CONFIRMED that any reply papers filed by movants Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams 

in support of their Motion for Clarification of the Court’s August 15, 2006 Order Denying 

Motion to Quash Subpoenas and any reply papers filed by the government in support of its 

separate Motion for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt are due Monday, September 18, 2006. 

DATED: ________, 2006 ____________________________________ 

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

Sept. 13

Case 3:06-xr-90225-JSW Document 83 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 5