Order Setting Hearing On Motion
Order Setting Hearing On Motion
Order Setting Hearing On Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9 Kristin M. Perry, et al., NO. C 09-02292 JW
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER SETTING HEARING ON
v. MOTION
11
United States District Court
Defendants.
13 /
14 On April 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit transferred Appellants’ (Intervenor-Defendants)
15 Motion for Order Compelling Return of Trial Recordings and Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Cross-
16 Motion to this Court. (See Docket Item Nos. 770, 771.) Upon review, the Court finds good cause to
17 set a hearing on Intervenor-Defendants’ Motion that coincides with the hearing on the Motion to
18 Vacate Judgment. However, the Court finds good cause to bifurcate Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to lift
19 the protective order until it has the opportunity to resolve the underlying Motion. The Court will set
20 a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion in its Order addressing Intervenor-Defendants’ Motion.
21 Accordingly, the Court sets June 13, 2011 at 9 a.m. for a hearing on Intervenor-Defendants’
22 Motion. Although it appears that the Motion has been fully briefed at the circuit level,1 the Court
23 invites anyone who wishes to file further responses to the Motion to do so in compliance with the
24 following briefing schedule:
25 (1) On or before May 13, 2011, any party desiring to do so shall file their Opposition;
26 (2) On or before May 23, 2011, any party desiring to do so shall file their Reply.
27
1
On or before May 9, 2011, each party shall lodge with the Court two chambers’ copies of
28 their briefs and all supporting papers as filed with the Ninth Circuit.
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document772 Filed04/28/11 Page2 of 4
1 All participants in the trial, including the presiding judge (now retired), who are in
2 possession of a recording of the trial proceedings, are ordered to appear at the hearing on June 13,
3 2011, to show cause as to why the recordings should not be returned to the Court’s possession.
4
5 Dated: April 28, 2011
JAMES WARE
6 United States District Chief Judge
7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
12
For the Northern District of California
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document772 Filed04/28/11 Page3 of 4
1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
2 Retired Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, email redacted
Alan Lawrence Schlosser [email protected]
3 Amir Cameron Tayrani [email protected]
Andrew Perry Pugno [email protected]
4 Andrew Walter Stroud [email protected]
Angela Christine Thompson [email protected]
5 Austin R. Nimocks [email protected]
Brian Ricardo Chavez-Ochoa [email protected]
6 Brian W Raum [email protected]
Charles J. Cooper [email protected]
7 Charles Salvatore LiMandri [email protected]
Christine Van Aken [email protected]
8 Christopher Dean Dusseault [email protected]
Christopher Francis Stoll [email protected]
9 Christopher James Schweickert [email protected]
Claude Franklin Kolm [email protected]
10 Daniel J. Powell [email protected]
Danny Yeh Chou [email protected]
11 David Boies [email protected]
United States District Court