Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California; San v. Drug Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


April 26, 2012

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

Michael T. Risher (CA SBN 191627) mrisher@aclunc.org Linda Lye (CA SBN 215584) llye@aclunc.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415-621-2493 Facsimile: 415-255-1478 Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §1331. (Doc. 1). 4 5 parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 48). 6

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2012, the Court granted in part, denied in part the

WHEREAS, pursuant to its summary judgment order, the Court directed

Defendant to conduct additional searches, release certain information it had withheld, 8 supplement its search description, and supplement its Vaughn index in various respects. 9

WHEREAS, Defendant provided a status report describing its compliance with the Court's order on December 30, 2011. (Doc. 52). 11

12 further issues in dispute with respect to Defendant's production of documents under 13

WHEREAS, this Court entered a case management order giving the parties an 15 opportunity to meet and confer on attorneys' fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E), 16 and requiring the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal on or before April 26, 2012, or 17 appear before this Court on that date to explain why the case should not be dismissed. 18

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred on attorneys' fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and have been unable to arrive at a resolution of the matter. 21

WHEREAS, thereafter the parties met and conferred and agreed there were no

FOIA. 14

(Doc. 54). 19

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs will seek attorneys' fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E). 23

24 dismissal to affect the analysis of whether Plaintiffs have "substantially prevailed" within 25 the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E). 26

27 that Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 28

WHEREAS, the parties do not intend this stipulation and [proposed] order of

THEREFORE, the parties through their respective counsel of record jointly request

51(a)(1)(A)(ii), so that Plaintiffs may file a motion for attorneys' fees and other litigation 2 costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and Local Rule 54-5. 3

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs may bring a motion for attorneys' fees and other litigation costs pursuant to 5 22 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) and Local Rule 54-5. 23 24

Dated:

20120426

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.