No. M-06-01791-VRW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATIONCINDY COHN (145997)cindy@eff.orgLEE TIEN (148216)tien@eff.orgKURT OPSAHL (191303)kurt@eff.orgKEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) bankston@eff.orgCORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504)corynne@eff.orgJAMES S. TYRE (083117) jstyre@eff.org454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Telephone: 415/436-9333415/436-9993 (fax)Attorneys for Plaintiffs[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONIN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCYTELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDSLITIGATION, MDL No. 1791This Document Relates To:ALL CASES))))))))))))))))))MDL Docket No. 06-1791 VRW
CLASS ACTIONPLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TOGOVERNMENT MOTION TO STAYPROCEEDINGS
Date: February 9, 2007Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 128 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 1 of 50
MDL-1791-VRW P
LAINTIFFS
’ O
PPOSITION TO
M
OTION TO
S
TAY
i
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................1
II.
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................4
A.
F
ACTUAL
B
ACKGROUND
..............................................................................................................................................4
B.
P
ROCEDURAL
B
ACKGROUND
.......................................................................................................................................5
III.
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................................................5
A.
T
HE
G
OVERNMENT
H
AS
N
OT
M
ET THE
L
EGAL
S
TANDARD FOR A
S
TAY
P
ENDING
A
PPEAL
.....................................5
B.
T
HE
M
OVANTS
M
ANIFESTLY
C
ANNOT
M
EET
T
HEIR
B
URDEN FOR THE
N
ON
-
H
EPTING
C
ASES
................................7
C.
T
HE
B
ALANCE OF
H
ARDSHIPS
T
IPS
S
HARPLY IN
F
AVOR OF
P
LAINTIFFS
, N
OT THE
G
OVERNMENT OR THE
C
ARRIERS
......................................................................................................................................................................9
1.
A Stay Would Impose Substantial Hardship Upon Plaintiffs................................................................................9
2.
The Government and the Defendants Do Not Yet Face the Purported Harm....................................................16
3.
The Procedure Of Section 1806(f) Can Be Used Where Necessary To Allow the Case to Proceed While Preventing Any Possible Irreparable Harm.........................................................................................................18
D.
T
HE
M
OVANTS
A
RE
N
OT
L
IKELY TO
S
UCCEED ON THE
M
ERITS OF
T
HEIR
A
PPEALS
.............................................23
1.
Courts Continue to Reject the Government’s State Secret Arguments...............................................................23
2.
Congressional Hearings May Confirm that the Defendants Participated in the Governments MassiveWarrantless Surveillance Program.......................................................................................................................24
3.
The Government’s Assertion of a Privilege Prohibiting Any Decision By This Court Should Be Put to Rest...............................................................................................................................................................25
E.
S
IGNIFICANT
S
TEPS
C
AN AND
S
HOULD
B
E
T
AKEN
W
HILE
A
WAITING THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
’
S
H
EPTING
D
ECISION
.....................................................................................................................................................................27
1.
Discovery that Does Not Implicate the State Secret Privilege Can Advance The Litigation Without Harming the Movants’ Interests............................................................................................................................................27
2.
To Increase Judicial Economy, the Court Can Tee Up Likely Future Disputes Over the Application of theState Secrets Privilege to Specific Discovery.......................................................................................................32
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 128 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 2 of 50
MDL-1791-VRW P
LAINTIFFS
’ O
PPOSITION TO
M
OTION TO
S
TAY
ii
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3.
Plaintiffs Are Willing To Postpone Some Litigation Activities At This Time.....................................................36
F.
T
HE
C
OURT
R
ETAINS
J
URISDICTION TO
C
ONTINUE THIS
L
ITIGATION
......................................................................36
IV.
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................................40
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 128 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 3 of 50
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 42 for EFF: EFFopposition117
992
Reads
0
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
