United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants.
Michael T. Risher Attorney for Plaintiffs
D. Wilson Attorney for Defendant
Margaret R. Prinzing Attorney for Interveners
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON JUDGE
Introduction and Summary
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.
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.
parties therefore request that the Court continue this matter
until on or around Monday October 10, 2016 for a further case
Facts and Procedural Background
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 preliminary injunction, prohibiting
Defendant from enforcing the challenged portions of the
initiative. Dkt. Nos. 36, 78.
Defendant and Intervenors appealed, this Court stayed the
matter pending resolution of the appeal at the request of the
parties. Dkt. No. 100 (2/25/2013). The Ninth Circuit affirmed
this Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction
on November 18, 2014, and remanded the case back to this
Court for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 105; see Doe v.
Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit
issued its mandate on January 2, 2015. Dkt. No. 107.
forth in the parties’ prior JCMS, Intervenors then
requested a stay of the case to pursue legislation in the
California state legislature to address the Court’s
concerns about the portions of Proposition 35 at issue here.
The Court stayed the proceedings until September 15, 2015,
set this matter for a case management conference on October
26, 2015, and instructed the parties to file an updated case
management statement “setting forth the terms of any
finalized legislation that may resolve the issues in this
matter, as well as the parties’ positions on whether
such legislation does in fact resolve the issues and how to
proceed to a final disposition of the case.” Dkt. No.
115 at 2.
17, 2015, California Senator Ben Hueso introduced amendments
to SB 448 to address this Court and the Ninth Circuit’s
constitutional concerns regarding Proposition 35. On
September 1, 2015, the Senate approved SB 448, but the
Assembly was unable to vote on SB 448 before the session
closed on September 11, 2015.
October 26, 2015, by the parties’ stipulation, this
Court lifted the stay, declared that the provisions of state
law at issue are unconstitutional, and deferred entry of
final judgment “for a further reasonable time to allow
Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve
this matter.” Dkt. No. 119 at 1-2. That Order also
requires the parties to update the Court if it becomes
apparent that the legislation will or ...