Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Doe v. Harris

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

July 12, 2016

JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants.

          Michael T. Risher Attorney for Plaintiffs

          Robert D. Wilson Attorney for Defendant

          Margaret R. Prinzing Attorney for Interveners

          JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

          HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON 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 preliminary injunction, prohibiting Defendant from enforcing the challenged portions of the initiative. Dkt. Nos. 36, 78.

         After 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.

         As set 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.

         On June 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.

         On 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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