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.

Lawyers' Committee for Rights of San Francisco Bay Area v. Executive Office for Immigration Review

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

July 20, 2016

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA; CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES; COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO; AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants.

          BRIAN STRETCH (CABN 163973) United States Attorney SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643) Chief, Civil Division KIMBERLY FRIDAY (MABN 660544) Deputy Chief, Civil Division Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants

          Deborah A. Adler DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs

          JOINT REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC REFERRAL TO ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM; STIPULATION TO RESET DATES FOR ANSWER AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

          HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The parties, through their undersigned attorneys, have cooperatively worked towards settlement of this Freedom of Information Act action and anticipate that it can be resolved without the need for alternative dispute resolution. Defendants have made several productions of agency records and have only two requests for information that remain outstanding. Defendants are working diligently to complete their production of agency records in response to these requests, but the parties need additional time to complete the production and to ensure that the production is satisfactory to Plaintiffs.

         Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate and request (1) relief from the Court’s ADR program; (2) an extension of the Government’s deadline to file a responsive pleading; and (3) a postponement of the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2).

         Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled “Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California, ” or the specified portions of the ADR Internet site, www.cand.uscourts.gov/adr, discussed the available dispute resolution options provided by the Court and private entities; and considered whether this case might benefit from any of the available dispute resolution options.

         The parties agree that in this instance referral to a formal ADR process may unnecessarily consume the Court’s time and resources because the parties are working towards settlement of this action and anticipate resolving this matter without the need for further litigation. Accordingly, pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties hereby stipulate and jointly request that the case be removed from the ADR Multi-Option Program and that they be excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any further formal ADR process. If any party subsequently determines that submission to the formal ADR process would be beneficial to the efficient resolution of this matter, that party may request placement in one of the Court’s ADR programs at that time.

         For the same reason, the parties also stipulate and agree pursuant to Civ. L.R. 6-2 and 7-2, subject to approval by the Court, to postpone the August 2, 2016, Case Management Conference and the deadline for Defendants to file an Answer. The Court has reset the Case Management Conference and Answer dates on one occasion (Dkt. No. 11 at 2), and the parties have previously stipulated to an additional one-month extension of the Defendants’ Answer date (Dkt. No. 13). Defendants’ Answer is currently due by July 27, 2016; the parties propose an additional one-month extension to August 26, 2016. The parties propose postponing the Case Management Conference to a date in September or October convenient to the Court.

         A proposed order is attached.

         CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned hereby attests that I have conferred with Deborah Adler, counsel for plaintiffs, regarding this filing. Ms. Adler has represented that she concurs in the filing of this document and that I am authorized to file it on her behalf.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         Pursuant to stipulation and to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties are hereby removed from the ADR Multi-Option Program and are excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any further formal ADR process. Should any party subsequently determine that submission to the formal ADR process would be beneficial to the efficient resolution of this matter, that party may request placement in one of the Court’s ADR programs at that time.

         Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered that the Case Management Conference currently set for August 2, 2016, is hereby continued to October 25 2016 at 1:30 a.m/p.m. ...


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.