1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09044-JSW

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER STAYING MATTER PENDING 12 v. FINAL DISPOSITION OF TWITTER AND STRIKING PENDING MOTIONS 13 FACEBOOK INC., et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. 14

15 16 The Court has reviewed the parties’ responses to this Court’s order to show cause why the 17 Court in its discretion should not stay this matter pending final disposition of the appeal of the 18 dismissal of Donald Trump, et al. v. Twitter, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 21-cv-08378-JD (Ninth 19 Circuit Court of Appeals Case. No. 22-15961) (“Twitter”). 20 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 21 control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). “The exertion of this 23 power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 24 1962). The competing interests that a district court must weigh in deciding whether to grant a stay 25 include: (1) “possible damage which may result from granting a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity 26 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice 27 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which ] Having considered those interests and exercising its discretion, the Court STAYS this 2 || matter. In addition, the Court STRIKES the pending motions to dismiss and for preliminary 3 injunction, without prejudice to the parties refiling those motions at a later date. The parties shall 4 |} file a joint notice with the Court within seven days of the final disposition of Twitter. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: August 3, 2022 8 / / / F JEFFREY/S. WHITE) 9 United Statey/Distrifg Judge 10 1]

13

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28