Maack v. Reynolds

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R OB B ONTA
Attorney General of California
ANYA M. B INSACCA
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
S HIWON C HOE (SBN 320041)
C HRISTINA M C C ALL (SBN 234139)
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 510-4400
Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Shiwon.Choe@doj.ca.gov
Christina.McCall@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant John Reynolds, in his
official capacity as President of the California
Public Utilities Commission
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
TED MAACK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN REYNOLDS, in his official capacity
as President of the California Public Utilities
Commission,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-06860-CRB
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND BY ONE WEEK
DEADLINE FOR REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Date/Time: 	Nov. 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
Location: 	Zoom videoconference
Case 3:25-cv-06860-CRB Document 35 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stip. and [Proposed] Order to Extend Deadline for Reply ISO Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (No. 3:25-cv-06860-CRB)
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court extend by
one week Defendant’s deadline for his Reply in Support of Defendant’s Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Reply”), from October 13, 2026, to October 20, 2026. Plaintiff stipulates
to this request.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(1), Defendant states as follows. Lead counsel for
Defendant in this case is also lead counsel for Defendant Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California, in the appeals in Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bonta, No. 26-5120 (9th
Cir.), TikTok, Inc. et al. v. Bonta, No. 26-5121 (9th Cir.), and Google LLC et al. v. Bonta, No. 26-
5132 (9th Cir.). Those cases are appeals of a preliminary-injunction decision issued by the
Honorable Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California on August 5, 2026. Plaintiffs
in those appeals filed three opening briefs on September 8, 2026, and the Attorney General’s
consolidated answering brief is due on October 6, 2026. The Ninth Circuit has ordered that those
appeals be placed on the next available calendar. Order, No. 26-5120 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2026),
ECF No. 49. The Parties in this case were unaware of the eventual briefing schedule in those
cases when they stipulated to the current summary-judgment briefing schedule, as the scheduling
in this case occurred in May 2026, ECF Nos. 27–28, before the preliminary-injunction decision in
those cases was issued. Counsel has been heavily focused on preparing the Attorney General’s
consolidated answering brief in those appeals. In light of this, Defendant respectfully requests an
extension of one week to submit his Reply in this case, so that Defendant and counsel can have
additional time, after submitting the consolidated answering brief in those appeals, to more fully
brief in the Reply the issues in this case for this Court.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), the Parties state that there have been two prior time
modifications in this case. On May 19, 2026, the Parties stipulated to an extension of the
summary-judgment briefing schedule, which this Court so ordered on May 20, 2026. ECF Nos.
27–28. On September 8, 2026, this Court sua sponte continued the hearing on the summary-
judgment motions by one week, from November 6, 2026, to November 13, 2026. ECF No. 32.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(3), the Parties state that the requested modification will
not have any effect on the rest of the schedule for this case.
Case 3:25-cv-06860-CRB Document 35 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Stip. and [Proposed] Order to Extend Deadline for Reply ISO Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (No. 3:25-cv-06860-CRB)
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court extend
Defendant’s deadline for the Reply by one week, from October 13, 2026, to October 20, 2026.
Plaintiff stipulates to this request.
Dated: October 5, 2026 	Respectfully submitted,
P ACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
s/Christian Townsend*
S AMANTHA R OMERO-DREW
C HRISTIAN TOWNSEND
DONNA G. M ATIAS
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ted Maack
R OB B ONTA
Attorney General of California
ANYA M. B INSACCA
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
s/Shiwon Choe
S HIWON C HOE
C HRISTINA M C C ALL
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Defendant John Reynolds, in
his official capacity as President of the
California Public Utilities Commission
* In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that all signatories have
concurred in the filing of this document.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The deadline for Defendant’s Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is
extended to October 20, 2026.
Dated: October ___, 2026
THE HON . C HARLES R. B REYER
United States District Judge
7
Case 3:25-cv-06860-CRB Document 35 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 3