Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: In the first ruling in a series of suits filed by animal rights and environmental groups challenging the decision of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to take down and reassess records from its website containing personally identifying information the agency believed might be subject to privacy concerns, Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has found that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has not shown that it is entitled to an injunction requiring the APHIS to repost the information it took down. At the heart of ALDF's claim was that the APHIS records fell under the requirement in 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(2) that agencies make public final opinions and frequently requested documents through a reading room. ALDF argued that APHIS had violated that provision by taking down the posted records and asked Orrick to order the agency to repost them. Instead, Orrick found ALDF had not demonstrated that it was entitled to such relief. He noted that "they are not likely to succeed on their FOIA claim because there is no public remedy for violations of the reading room provision �" courts may order production of documents to specific plaintiffs but cannot mandate publication to the public as a whole. They have not exhausted administrative remedies on their reading room claims either. They also are not likely to succeed on their claim under the [Administrative Procedure Act] because FOIA provides plaintiffs an adequate alternative remedy." APHIS's decision to take down the inspection records was seen initially as a first salvo in an anticipated policy shift by the Trump administration to make less information publicly available. But the decision to take down the APHIS records actually had its roots in an earlier contentious dispute pitting agricultural businesses against advocacy groups and other entities that use data about government financial support to agricultural operations over the level of privacy for such businesses whose corporate identities overlap with publicly available personally identifying information. The leading case in the D.C. Circuit, Mult Ag Media v. Dept of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008), leans slightly in favor of disclosing personally identifying information when it is in a business context, but Congress has taken measures since that decision to shrink the universe of personally-identifying business information. Orrick cited American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 836 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016), a recently decided reverse-FOIA case in which the Eighth Circuit agreed that members of the American Farm Bureau Federation had standing to sue on behalf of their members over whether the EPA could disclose personally-identifying information in response to FOIA requests from environmental groups. Even though the Department of Agriculture had agreed in 2009 as part of a four-year suit brought against it by the Humane Society to post reports required under the Animal Welfare Act, APHIS became concerned that posting some of the personally-identifying information might open it up for liability under the Privacy Act. As a result, it took down many of the inspection records to assess whether or not personally-identifying information needed to be redacted. These actions led to lawsuits being filed in D.C. as well as other districts challenging APHIS's actions as violating its FOIA obligation to post final opinions and frequently requested records. In what may well be a preview of how these cases will be decided at the district court level, Orrick found that the recent D.C. Circuit ruling in CREW v. Dept of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017), not only severely limited ALDF's remedies, but also made clear that ALDF did not even have standing to bring its challenge because it had not made a FOIA request and exhausted administrative remedies. There is a significant back story to the CREW case as well which does not bode well for ALDF and its fellow plaintiffs going forward. Even though Payne Enterprises v. USA, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988), which held that FOIA allowed courts to provide equitable remedies to rectify agency policies that effectively denied access to information short of denials, has recently been reaffirmed by a number of district court judges in D.C., courts have been extremely reluctant to recognize rights to enforce the affirmative disclosure provisions of Section (a)(2). Viewed in historical context, a primary driver of such limited judicial remedies stems from the Supreme Court's 1980 companion decisions in Kissinger and Forsham, in which the Court announced that agencies only violated FOIA when they improperly withheld agency records in response to a FOIA request. Although this describes the normal course of FOIA litigation, it does not take into account a variety of other agency obligations under FOIA. Nevertheless, government attorneys frequently claim in court that the court does not have jurisdiction because the agency has not actually withheld any records, even though it has failed to respond within the statutory time limit, or denied a fee or fee category request. That argument usually isn't persuasive, but the fact that government attorneys continue to argue it suggests that they remain hopeful that a court will agree. Until the CREW case was decided recently by Judge Amit Mehta, both plaintiffs and the government believed that FOIA did not provide a remedy for failure to abide by Section (a)(2) and that if a remedy existed it was under the Administrative Procedure Act. Indeed, CREW's original suit to force the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to post its opinions on line was brought under the APA. But after examining the text of FOIA, Mehta concluded that FOIA did give courts the ability to remedy such violations. The case went to the D.C. Circuit where the appeals court agreed with Mehta but found a remedy that was so circumscribed that it was virtually useless. Based on Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Dept of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the D.C. Circuit concluded that any relief available for a violation of the affirmative disclosure provisions in Section (a)(2) was limited to FOIA requesters. Although the circumstances giving rise to the Kennecott Utah case were peculiarly unsuited for making pronouncements about information disclosure policy �" the case essentially tried to force the Interior Department to publish a rule in the Federal Register that it had withdrawn �" the D.C. Circuit noted that FOIA's judicial review right "allows district courts to order 'the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant,' not agency records withheld from the public." Orrick found the CREW decision was directly on point. He noted that "federal courts do not have the power to order agencies to make documents available for public inspection under section 552(a)(4)(B) of FOIA. While plaintiffs may bring suit to enforce section 552(a)(2) and may seek injunctive relief and production of documents to them personally, they cannot compel an agency to make documents available to the general public." He rejected ALDF's claim that it would suffer irreparable harm if APHIS did not repost the records immediately. Instead, he concluded that "the public's interest in immediately accessing all AWA enforcement and compliance records is outweighed by the USDA's interest in ensuring that these records do not improperly disclose private information."
Issues: Affirmative disclosure

FOIA Project Annotation: After refusing to grant the Animal Legal Defense Fund a preliminary injunction to force the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to repost information it had taken down from its website, Judge William Orrick has dismissed the case after finding the ALDF's contention that it had a separate APA claim that Orrick did not address was not convincing. ALDF argued that it had a separate APA claim to challenge whether the agency's decision to take down the information in the first place was arbitrary and capricious. But Orrick pointed out that "plaintiffs' injury is an informational injury based on a lack of access to documents that they assert they are entitled to under FOIA. Plaintiffs' argument that this claim is 'independent' from FOIA because it is based on the USDA's obligations under the APA, rather than FOIA, misses the point. While the USDA may have obligations under both FOIA and the APA, the plaintiffs have only one injury â€" an informational injury that depends on statutory rights conferred by FOIA. In the context of assessing whether there is an adequate remedy to plaintiffs' claims, the focus is on plaintiffs' injury and the possible means of redressing it. It is irrelevant that FOIA does not provide a specific means of challenging an agency's arbitrary decision to remove databases because plaintiffs do not have independent standing to challenge that action beyond its impact on plaintiffs' ability to access information to which they have a statutory right. What FOIA does provide is a means of redressing the only injury plaintiffs have identified by providing a means through which plaintiffs can obtain the information and documents that were once available on the USDA databases. . . [W]hile this remedy may not be identical to the relief available under the APA, it is nevertheless adequate to redress the informational injury plaintiffs have identified and thus to bar separate review under the APA."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Injunction

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2017-02-23	1	COMPLAINT for declaratory and injunctive relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-11180904.). Filed byAnimal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Folks, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
2017-02-23	2	Proposed Summons. (Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
2017-02-23	3	Certificate of Interested Entities by Animal Folks, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now (Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
2017-02-23	4	First MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Margaret B. Kwoka ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11181490.) filed by Animal Folks, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Kwoka, Margaret) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
2017-02-23	6	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 5/29/2017. Case Management Conference set for 6/5/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-02-24	5	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 3/10/2017. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2017) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
2017-02-27	7	Summons Issued as to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2017) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-02-27	8	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Animal Folks, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now re 2 Proposed Summons, 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 7 Summons Issued, 4 First MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Margaret B. Kwoka ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11181490.), 1 Complaint, 5 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines (Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 2/27/2017) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-03-06	9	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Animal Folks, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now.. (Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 3/6/2017) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-07	10	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Margaret B. Kwoka. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
2017-03-07	11	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
2017-03-08	12	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. William H. Orrick for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Executive Committee on 3/8/17. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
2017-03-13	13	CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERNECE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 5/30/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/13/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2017) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
2017-03-23	14	STIPULATION to Clarify/Extend Defendants' Deadline to Respond to the Complaint filed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 3/23/2017) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
2017-03-28	15	MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11268229.) filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Dunn, Lindsey) (Filed on 3/28/2017) Modified on 3/29/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2017)
2017-03-28	16	NOTICE of Appearance by John S. Rossiter, Jr NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JOHN S. ROSSITER (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 3/28/2017) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
2017-03-29	17	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 4/12/2017. Replies due by 4/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Matthew Liebman ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit J to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L to Declaration of Matthew Liebman, # 14 Declaration Declaration of Michael Budkie ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit J to Declaration of Michael Budkie, # 25 Declaration Declaration of Deborah Howard ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit J to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit K to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit L to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit M to Declaration of Deborah Howard, # 39 Declaration Declaration of Ann Olson ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 43 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 44 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 45 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 46 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 47 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 48 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Ann Olson, # 49 Exhibit Exhibit J o Declaration of Ann Olson, # 50 Exhibit Exhibit K o Declaration of Ann Olson, # 51 Declaration Declaration of Stephen Wells ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Rossiter, John) (Filed on 3/29/2017) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
2017-03-29	18	Proposed Order re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 3/29/2017) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
2017-04-04	19	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Set Briefing Schedule and Hearing filed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 4/4/2017) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
2017-04-05	20	ORDER granting 19 STIPULATION to reset deadlines re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response due by 4/26/2017. Reply due by 5/3/2017. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2017 02:00 PM before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/05/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
2017-04-05	21	Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 15 Motion for Pro Hac Vice by John S. Rossiter. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
2017-04-26	22	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kevin Shea, # 2 Declaration of E. John Pollak)(Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 4/26/2017) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
2017-04-28	23	STIPULATION re 1 Complaint, Extension of Time to Respond Until May 8, 2017 filed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 4/28/2017) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
2017-05-03	24	REPLY (re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed byAnimal Legal Defense Fund. (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 5/3/2017) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
2017-05-05	25	NOTICE of Appearance by Anjali Motgi on Behalf of Defendants (Motgi, Anjali) (Filed on 5/5/2017) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
2017-05-08	26	MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; [Proposed] Order filed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 5/22/2017. Replies due by 5/30/2017. (Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 5/8/2017) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
2017-05-12	27	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; [Proposed] Order STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 5/12/2017) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
2017-05-17	28	ORDER granting 27 STIPULATION continuing deadlines re 26 MOTION to Dismiss. Response due by 6/21/2017. Reply due by 7/19/2017. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/17/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2017) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
2017-05-19	29	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2017 re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion taken under submission; written order to follow. Total Time in Court 1 hour, 21 minutes. Court Reporter Name Angela Pourtabib. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/19/2017) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
2017-05-31	30	Order by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
2017-06-01	31	CLERK'S NOTICE - Case Management Conference continued to 8/9/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco (to coincide with motion hearing). Case Management Statement due by 8/2/2017. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
2017-06-21	32	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; [Proposed] Order ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS filed byAnimal Legal Defense Fund. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Rossiter, John) (Filed on 6/21/2017) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
2017-07-18	33	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; [Proposed] Order STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 7/18/2017) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
2017-07-18	34	REPLY (re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; [Proposed] Order ) filed byAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Bryce, Peter) (Filed on 7/18/2017) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
2017-07-25	35	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER Leave to file a Surreply re 34 Reply to Opposition/Response Defendants' Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. Responses due by 7/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Rossiter, John) (Filed on 7/25/2017) Modified on 7/26/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/25/2017)
2017-08-01	36	ORDER granting 33 STIPULATION. Case Management Conference continued to 9/12/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 9/5/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/01/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2017) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
2017-08-07	37	CLERK'S NOTICE - Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), the Court has determined that this matter is appropriate for determination without oral argument. The hearing set for 8/9/2017 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2017) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
2017-08-14	38	ORDER GRANTING 26 MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge William H. Orrick. 35 Administrative Motion to File Surreply granted. Plaintiffs will have 21 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2017) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
2017-08-28	39	ADR Clerk's Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order (ewh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2017) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
2017-08-28	40	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 38 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (Rossiter, John) (Filed on 8/28/2017) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
2017-08-30	41	ORDER granting 40 STIPULATION - Case Management Conference set for 10/24/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 10/17/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/30/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
2017-09-13	42	NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. Appeal of Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 38 (Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0971-11711191 paid.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Rossiter, John) (Filed on 9/13/2017) Modified on 9/14/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/14/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/20/2017: # 2 USCA NUMBER 17-16858 ) (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2017)
2017-09-20	43	USCA Case Number 17-16858 for 42 Notice of Appeal, filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
2017-09-29	44	MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment re 38 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Animal Folks, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Companion Animal Protection Society, Stop Animal Exploitation Now. Responses due by 10/13/2017. Replies due by 10/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Judgment)(Berry, Christopher) (Filed on 9/29/2017) Modified on 10/2/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-10-10	45	JUDGMENT pursuant to 44 Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/10/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2017) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
2017-10-13	46	*** DISREGARD - FILED IN ERROR (SEE DOCKET #48) *** Transcript Designation Form for proceedings held on 05/19/2017 before Judge Orrick, re 43 USCA Case Number, 42 Notice of Appeal,, Transcript due by 10/13/2017. (Dunn, Lindsey) (Filed on 10/13/2017) Modified on 10/13/2017 (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2017)
2017-10-13	47	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 05/19/2017 before Judge William H. Orrick by Animal Legal Defense Fund, for Court Reporter Angela Pourtabib. (Dunn, Lindsey) (Filed on 10/13/2017) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
2017-10-13	48	Transcript Designation Form for proceedings held on 05/19/2017 before Judge Orrick, re 43 USCA Case Number, 42 Notice of Appeal,, Transcript due by 10/13/2017. (Dunn, Lindsey) (Filed on 10/13/2017) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
Hide Docket Events