UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES

Date: May 2, 2017 Time: 29 minutes

1:32 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.

Judge: WILLIAM H. ORRICK

Case No.: 17-cv-00485-WHO

17-cv-00574-WHO

17-cv-01535-WHO

Case Name: City & County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump

County of Santa Clara v. Donald J. Trump, et al.

City of Richmond v. Donald J. Trump, et al.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Mollie Lee, Sara Eisenberg, Ronald P. Flynn (San Francisco)

Daniel Purcell and L. Javier Serrano (Santa Clara)

Nancy L. Fineman and Brian Danitz (Richmond) 

Attorney for Defendant: W. Scott Simpson

Deputy Clerk: Jean Davis Court Reporter: FTR Recording

PROCEEDINGS

Counsel appear for combined case management conference in related cases. Court inquires 

whether counsel have talked about the best way for the matters to proceed in light of the 

preliminary injunction. No agreements have been reached.

City of Richmond’s pending motion for injunction discussed. The Court inquires whether oral 

argument on the motion is necessary in light of the existing ruling issued on essentially identical 

motions filed by the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara. After 

discussion, the Court indicates that oral argument is probably not necessary. The hearing set for 

May 9, 2017 is VACATED. If the Court wants oral argument, the hearing will be rescheduled. 

Briefing schedule for the 1373 claims related to the City and County of San Francisco discussed, 

as well as the possible need for discovery.

Counsel for Santa Clara County queried on any discovery needs. 

Counsel for prospective intervenor (William Freeman) queried regarding the benefits to the 

overall litigation that would result from granting the motion to intervene and allowing the 

participation of the YWCA as a party rather than an amicus. The Court indicates that it is 

unlikely to grant the request to intervene.

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 88 Filed 05/02/17 Page 1 of 2
It is the Court's desire that any motions addressing similar issues in the three cases be scheduled 

for the same hearing date. Discovery may proceed now, although counsel indicate that this will 

likely not be a discovery intensive case. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the three cases are directed to

coordinate and send one set of discovery requests (rather than three separate ones) to avoid 

unnecessary duplication.

Government counsel asks to delay filing motions to dismiss until June 6th, 7th, and 8th, in part 

because he will be out of the office in the middle of May. Plaintiffs are concerned that the 

Government may use this time to seek a stay of the case. Government counsel represents that 

this is highly unlikely, but cannot bind the Government. The Court suggests, and counsel agree, 

that they stipulate to the extension on the Government’s representation that it will not use the 

delay caused by its request in any way to prejudice plaintiffs. Government’s request is granted 

on that basis; the standard briefing schedule will apply, and the motions will be heard July 12, 

2017 at 2:00 p.m. if oral argument is required. Counsel should meet and confer following the 

conference to prepare an appropriate stipulation to prevent any prejudice to plaintiffs stemming 

from the delay. 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE:

Fact discovery cutoff: October 31, 2017

Deadline for filing dispositive motions: November 30, 2017

Dispositive Motions heard by: January 10, 2018

Pretrial Conference: April 2, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

Trial: April 23, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. by Court

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 88 Filed 05/02/17 Page 2 of 2