United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants.
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 ...