Case: Twitter v. Barr [Holder]

4:14-cv-04480 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Oct. 7, 2014

Closed Date: Jan. 8, 2024

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

[Note: This case was previously known as Twitter v. Holder, then Twitter v. Lynch, then Twitter v. Sessions] On October 7, 2014, Twitter -- an online social networking service -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under the Administrative Procedure Act. Twitter, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, a…

[Note: This case was previously known as Twitter v. Holder, then Twitter v. Lynch, then Twitter v. Sessions]

On October 7, 2014, Twitter -- an online social networking service -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under the Administrative Procedure Act. Twitter, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging that nondisclosure provisions set forth in a letter from the Deputy Attorney General ("the DAG Letter") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) secrecy provisions were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Twitter also contended that the review mechanisms for seeking to modify the nondisclosure provisions violate the separation of power principles.

Twitter specifically contested the FBI's practice of occasionally issuing National Security Letters ("NSLs") to communication providers, compelling them to disclose information deemed relevant for protecting against terrorism. The FBI also issues FISA orders that permit surveillance or disclosure of stored records. Recipients of a NSL or a FISA order are restricted from disclosing information from that order.

In 2013, in response to these restrictions, five communication providers (including Google and Facebook) filed a lawsuit to relax restrictions for publishing information such as the total number of requests and user accounts encompassed by such requests. In January 2014, the DOJ and the five providers settled. Two pre-approved disclosure formats were set forth in the DAG Letter, which was dated January 27, 2014.

Twitter, the plaintiff in this case, had a practice of releasing transparency reports that listed the number of requests from the government for account information and content removal, and how Twitter responded to such requests. At the time of the complaint, the reports did not contain information regarding NSL and FISA orders. On January 29, 2014, the plaintiff met with the defendants and sought confirmation that the DAG Letter (of January 27, 2014) did not apply to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a draft report to the FBI seeking prepublication review; the draft included numeric information of NSL and FISA orders received. The FBI denied prepublication on a basis that the contained information exceeded the scope set forth in the DAG Letter. This first amendment complaint ensued.

On October 17, 2014, the government declined to proceed before a magistrate judge, and the case was subsequently reassigned to District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on October 20, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The government argued that: 1. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing, and because the DAG Letter did not constitute a final agency act under the Administrative Procedure Act; 2. FISA challenges should instead have been considered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and 3. The Plaintiff's separation of powers challenge to the disclosure review mechanisms failed as a matter of law because deference to the Executive was entirely appropriate in this context.

In February 2015, a number of popular digital media organizations filed amici briefs on behalf of Twitter, including Buzzfeed, National Public Radio, and Reddit.

A hearing was held on the government’s motion to dismiss on May 5, 2015, but before Judge Rogers could rule, the defendants notified her in June 2015 of the passage of the USA Freedom Act. The USA Freedom Act reauthorized portions of the USA Patriot Act, but eliminated the Patriot Act’s bulk data collection provisions. Notably for this case, the Act added options for those who had been subject to NSL or FISA orders to publicly report information about orders received, and amended the judicial review process for NSL nondisclosure requirements.

Judge Rogers subsequently called for briefings on the impact of the Act on the pending partial motion for summary judgment and on the case as a whole. The plaintiff argued that the legislative changes did not affect the defendant's pending partial motion to dismiss, should not affect Twitter’s APA or First Amendment claims, and changed, but did not moot, its First Amendment and separation of powers claim. The government argued that passage of the Act made the plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act and First Amendment challenges moot, and that the Act reinforced the constitutionality of the NSL statutes.

On October 14, 2015, after receiving all supplemental briefs, the Judge Rogers dismissed the government’s motion to dismiss as moot and ordered Twitter to file an amended complaint in light of the changes under the USA Freedom Act. 139 F.Supp.3d 1075. Twitter filed its amended complaint on November 13, 2015. In light of the new legislation, Twitter sought declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing that the non-disclosure provisions of FISA were unconstitutional on their face, that the government’s actions showed a pattern of “informal, overly expansive, delayed and conflicting” actions that had a chilling effect on speech and limited Twitter’s first amendment rights. It also argued that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional as applied to Twitter, and sought declaratory relief to that effect, expressing its concern that Twitter would be prosecuted under the Espionage Act should it choose to publish its Transparency Report.

The government filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 15, 2016. It argued that the court should dismiss the FISA claims in the interest of comity, that Twitter failed to establish standing with respect to its Espionage Act claims, and that all of Twitter’s claims should fail as a matter of law since the government may lawfully restrict disclosure of classified information.

On May 2, 2016, Judge Rogers granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Judge Rogers denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds of comity and concluded that Twitter had standing under the Espionage Act, but had not sufficiently pleaded its First Amendment claims. 183 F.Supp.3d 1007. Three weeks later, Twitter filed a second amended complaint. In it, Twitter alleged an implied cause of action under the First Amendment and a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Twitter claimed that the information it sought to disclose was improperly classified, and that the government failed to specify which specific information in its report could not be published.

On November 22, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. It was denied without prejudice on July 6, 2017. The government filed a motion to reconsider on September 5, 2017, which Judge Rogers denied on November 28, 2017.

After a lengthy discovery process, the Court published an order on June 21, 2019 suggesting that they would reconsider defendants' motion for summary judgment based on new information provided in the classified declaration of Michael McGarrity, Acting Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This evidence supported the government's assertion of a state secrets privilege, showing with specificity the imminent harm to national security that disclosure of this information would constitute.

On September 27, 2019, the government filed a renewed motion for Summary Judgment. On October 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the government's evidence was purely speculative and hypothetical and that they failed to meet their burden to justify classification of the information in Twitter's transparency report.

In April 2020, Judge Rogers granted summary judgment to the government and denied summary judgment to the plaintiff. The Court ruled that, while strict scrutiny applied, the government sufficiently showed that the national security concerns outweighed Twitter's interest in disclosure. 2020 WL 1904597.

The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 15, 2020, and the court heard oral argument on August 10, 2021. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government on March 6, 2023. 61 F.4th 686. The court determined that the FBI’s decision to redact certain information from Twitter’s transparency report was subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment because it was a content-based restriction of speech. Nevertheless, the court found that the government passed strict scrutiny because it had a compelling interest in national security and the redactions were narrowly tailored to support that interest. Twitter argued that the redactions did not pass strict scrutiny because the government had not made an individualized inquiry as to whether the information should be redacted. The court disagreed, finding that the government provided detailed reasons why disclosing specific information Twitter sought to publish would risk revealing to foreign adversaries what was being surveilled.

On April 20, 2023, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the Ninth Circuit denied on May 16, 2023. The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 8, 2024, the Court denied that petition. 144 S.Ct. 556.

	Document
4:14-cv-04480	Docket [PACER] Twitter v. Barr	April 17, 2020	April 17, 2020 Docket
1 4:14-cv-04480	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Twitter v. Holder	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014 Complaint
28 4:14-cv-04480	Defendants' Notice of Motion and Partial Motion to Dismiss Twitter v. Holder	Jan. 9, 2015	Jan. 9, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
33 4:14-cv-04480	Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings Twitter v. Holder	Jan. 26, 2015	Jan. 26, 2015 Transcript
52-1 4:14-cv-04480	Brief of Amicus Curiae Freedom of the Press Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Twitter v. Holder	Feb. 17, 2015	Feb. 17, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
74 4:14-cv-04480	Supplemental Brief Regarding the USA Freedom Act Twitter v. Lynch	July 17, 2015	July 17, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
75 4:14-cv-04480	Twitter's Opening Supplemental Brief on Effect of Recent Legislation Twitter v. Lynch	July 17, 2015	July 17, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
77 4:14-cv-04480	Defendants' Reply Addressing Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief Regarding the USA Freedom Act Twitter v. Lynch	Aug. 7, 2015	Aug. 7, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
76 4:14-cv-04480	Twitter's Reply Supplemental Brief on Effect of Recent Legislation Twitter v. Lynch	Aug. 7, 2015	Aug. 7, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
85 4:14-cv-04480	Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot and, On the Court's Own Motion, Ordering Filing of Amended Complaint in Light of Recent Legislation Twitter v. Lynch	Oct. 14, 2015	Oct. 14, 2015 Order/Opinion 139 F.Supp.3d 1075

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8977026.). Filed by Twitter, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 5, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Miller, Eric) (Filed on 10/7/2014) Modified on 10/8/2014 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2014) 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 5 View on RECAP 2 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014 Clearinghouse
2	Certificate of Interested Entities by Twitter, Inc. and Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Miller, Eric) (Filed on 10/7/2014) (Entered: 10/07/2014)	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
3	MOTION of Michael A. Susmann for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-8977180) filed by Twitter, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Sussmann, Michael) (Filed on 10/7/2014) Modified on 10/8/2014 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2014) 1 Certificate of Good Standing View on PACER	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
4	MOTION of Hayley L. Berlin for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-8977283) filed by Twitter, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Berlin, Hayley) (Filed on 10/7/2014) (Entered: 10/07/2014) 1 Certificate of Good Standing View on PACER	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
5	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. 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. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2014) (Entered: 10/07/2014)	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
6	Proposed Summons. (Miller, Eric) (Filed on 10/7/2014) (Entered: 10/07/2014)	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
7	Proposed Summons. (Miller, Eric) (Filed on 10/7/2014) (Entered: 10/07/2014)	Oct. 7, 2014	Oct. 7, 2014
10	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 4 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Hayley Berlin (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014
11	posted in error - please see doc. 14 Summons Issued as to Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) Modified on 10/9/2014 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014
12	posted in error - please see doc. 15 Summons Issued as to James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) Modified on 10/9/2014 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014
13	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/8/2015. Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014 RECAP
8	NOTICE of Appearance by James G. Snell (Snell, James) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014
9	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Michael Sussmann (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) Modified on 1/30/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/08/2014)	Oct. 8, 2014	Oct. 8, 2014
14	Summons Reissued as to Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)	Oct. 9, 2014	Oct. 9, 2014
15	Summons Reissued as to James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)	Oct. 9, 2014	Oct. 9, 2014
16	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice.. (Bressler, Steven) (Filed on 10/17/2014) (Entered: 10/17/2014)	Oct. 17, 2014	Oct. 17, 2014 RECAP
17	CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014) (Entered: 10/20/2014)	Oct. 20, 2014	Oct. 20, 2014
18	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 10/20/14. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014) (Entered: 10/20/2014)	Oct. 20, 2014	Oct. 20, 2014 RECAP
19	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Twitter, Inc. re 14 Summons Reissued, 15 Summons Reissued, 1 Complaint, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Service on Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, # 2 Exhibit B - Service on United States Department of Justice, # 3 Exhibit C - Service on James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, # 4 Exhibit D - Service on Federal Bureau of Investigation, # 5 Exhibit E - Service on Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, # 6 Exhibit F - Service on United States Attorney for the Northern District of California)(Miller, Eric) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014) 1 Exhibit A - Service on Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States View on PACER 2 Exhibit B - Service on United States Department of Justice View on PACER 3 Exhibit C - Service on James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigat View on PACER 4 Exhibit D - Service on Federal Bureau of Investigation View on PACER 5 Exhibit E - Service on Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole View on PACER 6 Exhibit F - Service on United States Attorney for the Northern District of Calif View on PACER	Nov. 6, 2014	Nov. 6, 2014
20	CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 1/19/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/26/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014) (Entered: 11/07/2014) 1 Standing Order View on PACER	Nov. 7, 2014	Nov. 7, 2014
21	NOTICE Regarding Classified Document by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice re 1 Complaint, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Unclassified, Redacted Version of Plaintiff's Proposed "Transparency Report", # 2 Exhibit 2. October 8, 2014 Letter from Steven Bressler to Michael Sussmann)(Bressler, Steven) (Filed on 11/17/2014) Modified on 11/18/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2014) 1 Exhibit 1. Unclassified, Redacted Version of Plaintiff's Proposed "Tra View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 2. October 8, 2014 Letter from Steven Bressler to Michael Sussmann View on RECAP	Nov. 17, 2014	Nov. 17, 2014 RECAP
22	NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Alexandra Berman (Berman, Julia) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)	Dec. 3, 2014	Dec. 3, 2014
23	STIPULATION to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint filed by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice., Twitter Inc (Berman, Julia) (Filed on 12/3/2014) Modified on 12/4/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2014)	Dec. 3, 2014	Dec. 3, 2014
24	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Requesting to Set a Briefing Schedule filed by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice, Twitter Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration)(Berman, Julia) (Filed on 12/3/2014) Modified on 12/4/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2014) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER 2 Declaration View on PACER	Dec. 3, 2014	Dec. 3, 2014
25	ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 24 Stipulation re Briefing Schedule (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)	Dec. 5, 2014	Dec. 5, 2014 RECAP
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Dec. 5, 2014	Dec. 5, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines as to File Motion to Dismiss Complaint by 1/9/15;Responses due by 2/6/2015. Replies due by 2/20/2015. Motion Hearing set for 3/10/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014)	Dec. 5, 2014	Dec. 5, 2014
26	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Snell, James) (Filed on 1/5/2015) (Entered: 01/05/2015)	Jan. 5, 2015	Jan. 5, 2015
27	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Bressler, Steven) (Filed on 1/5/2015) (Entered: 01/05/2015)	Jan. 5, 2015	Jan. 5, 2015
28	MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) filed by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice. Motion Hearing set for 3/10/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Responses due by 2/6/2015. Replies due by 2/20/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered: 01/09/2015) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Jan. 9, 2015	Jan. 9, 2015 Clearinghouse
29	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice, Twitter. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Berman, Julia) (Filed on 1/20/2015) Modified on 1/21/2015 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2015) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Jan. 20, 2015	Jan. 20, 2015 RECAP
31	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: Initial Case Management Conference held on 1/26/2015.Court Reporter : Raynee Mercado. Plaintiff Attorney James Snell and Michael Sussmann. Defendant Attorney Steven Bressler and Julia Berman. Attachment Minutes.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/26/2015) Modified on 1/30/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2015)	Jan. 26, 2015	Jan. 26, 2015
30	TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Twitter, Inc. for Court Reporter Raynee Mercado. (Snell, James) (Filed on 1/27/2015) (Entered: 01/27/2015)	Jan. 27, 2015	Jan. 27, 2015
32	TRANSCRIPT ORDER by James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Eric H. Holder, Jr, United States Department of Justice for Court Reporter Raynee Mercado. (Bressler, Steven) (Filed on 1/30/2015) (Entered: 01/30/2015)	Jan. 30, 2015	Jan. 30, 2015
33	Transcript of Proceedings held on January 26, 2015, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Court Reporter Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, Telephone number 510-502-6175, cacsr8258@gmail.com, raynee_mercado@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 30 Transcript Order, 32 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2015. (Related document(s) 30, 32 ) (rhm) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)	Feb. 3, 2015	Feb. 3, 2015 Clearinghouse
34	RESPONSE (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) ) Opposition to Partial Motion to Dismiss filed byTwitter, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Snell, James) (Filed on 2/6/2015) (Entered: 02/06/2015) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Feb. 6, 2015	Feb. 6, 2015 RECAP
35	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Set a Revised Briefing Schedule filed by Twitter, Inc., Eric H. Holder, Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Snell, James) (Filed on 2/12/2015) Modified on 2/12/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2015) 1 Declaration View on PACER 2 Proposed Order View on PACER	Feb. 12, 2015	Feb. 12, 2015
36	ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 35 Stipulation Setting Revised Briefing Schedule (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2015) (Entered: 02/13/2015)	Feb. 13, 2015	Feb. 13, 2015 RECAP
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Feb. 13, 2015	Feb. 13, 2015
	Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial). 2/17/15 for amicus briefs, if any;Replies due by 3/4/2015. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2015)	Feb. 13, 2015	Feb. 13, 2015

Case: Twitter v. Barr [Holder]

4:14-cv-04480 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details