United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD and
JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO.
LTD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WIKILEAKS, et al.
Defendants.
/
No. C 08-00824 JSW
TENTATIVE RULING AND
QUESTIONS
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE
HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 10:00 A.M.:
The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties
reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not
cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these
authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If
the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the
authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d).
The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such
authority.
The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining
order.
Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. et al v. Wikileaks et al
Doc. 37
Dockets.Justia.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
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
The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:
1.
Who is attorney of record for the WikiLeaks Defendants?
2.
Have Plaintiffs, by briefly and mistakenly posting their own confidential information on
the Court’s docket, effectively waived the confidentiality of those documents? (See
Docket no. 10.)
3.
What is the proper scope of the restraining order? Are Plaintiffs seeking only to enjoin
“further”