Doe v. Harris

         Case Management Conference:

          Jack Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Temple Risher, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc., Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation & Linda Lye, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc..

          John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Temple Risher, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc., Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation & Linda Lye, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc..

          California Reform Sex Offender Laws, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Temple Risher, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc., Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation & Linda Lye, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc..

          Kamala D. Harris, Defendant, represented by Robert David Wilson, California State Attorney General's Office.

          Daphne Phung, Intervenor, represented by Margaret R. Prinzing, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, James C. Harrison, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP & Karen Ann Getman, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP.

          Chris Kelly, Intervenor, represented by Margaret R. Prinzing, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, James C. Harrison, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP & Karen Ann Getman, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP.

          JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

          THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

         1. Introduction and Summary

         All parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management Statement (JCMS), as required by this Court's March 9, 2016 order (Dkt. No. 122). This JCMS supplements the JCMS previously filed by the parties on March 30, 2015 (Dkt. No. 113), October 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 117), and March 9, 2016 (Dkt. No. 121).

         This Court's October 26, 2015 order declared that the provisions of state law at issue in this case are unconstitutional but deferred entry of final judgment to allow Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve this matter. Dkt. No. 119 at 1. As discussed below, Intervenors are still continuing to pursue that legislation and expect that the State Assembly will take further action on that legislation shortly.

         The parties therefore request that the Court continue this matter until on or around Monday October 10, 2016 for a further case management conference.

         2. Facts and Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed this class-action lawsuit in 2012, challenging the portions of the newly enacted Proposition 35 that required all persons who must register under California Penal Code section 290 because they have been convicted of sex-related offenses to provide to police their Internet identifiers and the names of their Internet service providers. This Court granted a temporary restraining order, halting enforcement of the law and then a ...