EFF: breadymotion

8/14/2019 EFF: breadymotion

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eff-breadymotion 1/4

I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

l l

t2

13

t4

15

T6t7

18

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

GRTFFINWHITAKERLLPJOSHUAGRAEME WHITAKER(Appearing ursuanto MDL Rule1.4 U.S.Dist. Ct. for

the Dist. of Md. BarNo. 164571)j oshuawhitaker@griffiwhitaker. om

EDWARD NELSONGRIFFIN(Appearing ursuanto MDL Rule 1.4 U.S.Dist. Ct. for

theDist.of Md. BarNo. 164351)edwardgriffin@griffi nwhitaker. om

8730GeorgiaAvenueSuiteLL100SilverSpring,MD 20910Telephone: (301)587-3345Facsimile: (888)367-0383Attorneysor PlaintiffsChristopherBready,t al.

T]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

26

27

28

NATIONAL SECURITYAGENCYTELECOMMLTNICATIONSECORDSLITIGATION

This DocumentRelates o:

Bready,et al. v. VerizonMaryland, nc.UnitedStatesDistrict Court or theDistrict of MarylandCase o. 1:06-2185

MDL DocketNo. 06-1791 RW

Relateso CaseNo. 3:06-3596andRelateso CaseNo. 3:06-3574

BREADYPLAINTIFFS'MOTION FORADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Courtroom ,l7h FloorJudge:Hon. VaughnR. Walker

[Civ.L.R.7-11]

BREADYPLAINTIFFS' MOTION FORADMINISTRATWE RELIEF

MDL DocketNo. 06-01791-VRW

Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 94 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 4



I

2

J

4

)

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

t3

l4

l5

t6

t7

18

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuanto Civil L.R. 7-11,PlaintiffsCHRISTOPHER BREADY, er a/.

(hereinafter Plaintiffs"), do herebymove his Court o grant hemadministrative elief,

respectfully equesting hat this Court ssueanorder o showcauseas o why theCourt's

resolution f theremandmotionsof Campbell, t al. v. AT&T Communicationsf

Califurnia,nc.,CaseNo. 3:06-3596N.D.Cal.) hereinafter'Campbelf'),andRiordan,

etal. v. VerizonCommunications,nc., et al., CaseNo. 3:06-3574N.D.Cal.)

(hereinaftetRiordan"),scheduledor hearing nDecember l'1,2006,shouldnot be

appliedo the remandmotionpendingn Bready,etal. v. VerizonMaryland, nc.,Case

No. 1 06-2185D.Md.)(hereinafterBreadlf') BreadyDkt. I5).

I. ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs requesthat he Court ssuean order o showcause s o why the

Court'sOrder egardinghe remandmotionsof CampbellandRiordanshouldnotapply

to the Bready emandmotion.

II. REASONSADMINISTRATIVB RELIEF IS SOUGHT

Plaintiffs espectflrlly tate hat he administrativeelief sought ereinwill help

avoidprejudiceo their action,andwill firrtherudicialefficiency. TheBreadyaction s

oneof only fotr actions,ncludingCampbell,Riordan,andChuslky, tal. v. Cellco

Portnership,No. 06-cv-2530D.N.J.),hathavebeen ransferredo this Courtandhave

remandmotionspendingesponse ndor udicial resolution. n early2007, his Court's

Civil MinuteOrder,asamendednNovember17,2006, equireshat masteromplaints

be filed and servedby theplaintifls; importantly, his Court will also determinewhether

theUnited StatesGovemment's equest or astay n theMDL action shouldbegranted.

(MDL l79l Dkt.78). ThePlaintiffs,asMarylandstate esidentseeking tatelaw

BREADYPLAINTIFFS'MOTION FORADMINISTRATIVERELIEF

MDL DocketNo. 06-01791-VRW




I

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

l l

t2

13

I4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

2l

) )

23

24

25

26

27

28

remedies gainst Marylandcorporation, ish o have heir urisdictionalssues esolved

prior to thoseevents,n order o avoidprejudicialdelay o theprosecution f theiraction,

aswell asurmecessaryostsof participation n federal itigation.

Furthermore,he administrative elief soughtherein urthersudicial efficiency.

Becausemanyof the samessuesaised n the Bready emandmotioncouldbe

effectively esolved y this Courtonor immediatelyollowing he hearingon the 2l't of

December, nly limitedsupplemental riefing wouldberequired o addresshe ssuesof

Maryland aw,which distinguish heBreadyaction fromCampbellandRiordan,prior to

a hearingonthis matter.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing easons, laintiffs respectfully equesthatthe administrative

relief soughthereinbegranted,and hat this Court ssuean Order o ShowCause n

writing as o why the CampbellandRiordanremandOrdershouldnotapply to Bready.

DATED: December 9.2006

/SIGNED/JOSHUAnnrrrlPWrurarpn(U.S.Dist.Ct. for theDist.of Md. BarNo. 16457)j oshuawhitaker@riffi nwhitaker. omEDWARDNELSONGRIFFIN(U.S.Dist.Ct. orthe Dist.of Md.BarNo.l6435)edward riffin@gri fi nwhitaker. om8730GeorgiaAvenueSuiteLL100SilverSpring,MD 20910Telephone: (301)587-3345Facsimile: (888)367-0383Attorneys or Plaintiffs ChristopherBready,et al.

J

MDL Docket o.06-01791-VRw BREADIPLAINTIFFS'oTIoN FoRADMINISTRATWE ELIEF




1

2

-)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

t2

l3

l4

15

t6

l7

18

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DocketNumber 6-1 91VRW

CERTIFICATEOF COMPLAINCEWITH CIV. L.R. 7-I2

I, JoshuaGraemeWhitaker, heundersigred,do herebydeclareand stateas

follows:

l. I am over18andnot aparty o thiscase. amapartnerat the irm of

Griffin Whitaker LLP.

2. My businessddresss 8730Georgia venue,SuiteLLl00, SilverSpring,

Maryland,20910.

3. On hemomingof December9th, 006, t 10:20 .M. local ime,

attemptedo contactMr. SamirJain,counselor VerizonMaryland, nc.,via telephone,

in order o obtainconsento the Plaintiffs'MOTION FORADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF. At that time, I left a detailedvoicemail or Mr. Jain regardinghe matters

assertedherein.At approximately:30P.M. ocal ime, againattemptedo contactMr.

Jain egardinghismattervia electronicmail,and eceived responseromhis associate,

Mr. Brian Boynton.Thematterwasdiscussedn two telephoneonversations,t the

conclusion f which Mr. Boynton,on behalfof Defendant, idnot consento the relief

soughtn the oregoingmotion.

I declareunder hepenaltyof perjurythatthe foregoing s true.

DATED: December9.2006

*

(U.S.Dist.Ct. for the Dist.of Md. BarNo. 16457)j oshuawhitaker@ri fi nwhitaker. om8730GeorgiaAvenueSuiteLL100SilverSpring,MD 20910Telephone: (301)587-3345Facsimile: (888)367-0383Attorney or PlaintiffsChristopherBready,t al.

4MDL DocketNo. 06-01791-VRw BREADIPLAINTIFFS'MoTIoN FoR

ADMINISTRATIVERELIEF


Documents

EFF: breadymotion