Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 502

ORDER, by Judge Joseph C. Spero, signed 1/20/10,denying without prejudice 404 James Garlow's Motion to Quash; denying without prejudice 407 Miles McPherson's Motion to Quash (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 502 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document502 Filed01/20/10 Page1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as attorney general of California; MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as director of the California Department of Public Health and state registrar of vital statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as deputy director of health information & strategic planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as registrarrecorder/county clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ≠ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / No C 09-2292 VRW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO QUASH [Docket Nos. 404 and 407] Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document502 Filed01/20/10 Page2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: On January 11, 2010, James L Garlow and Miles McPherson ("movants") moved to quash subpoenas issued by plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. Docs #404, 407. The matter was referred to the undersigned judge and heard on January 20, 2010. At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel represented that his current intention is to question movants only on issues related to authentication of certain documents and video. In light of that representation, counsel for Messrs Garlow and McPherson stated that he does not object to such a line of inquiry. Accordingly, the motions to quash brought by Garlow (Doc #404) and McPherson (Doc #407) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the parties informed the court that movants had objected to the introduction of certain evidence ≠ which was not obtained from movants ≠ during examination of witnesses other than Garlow and McPherson. Counsel for Messrs Garlow and McPherson indicated that going forward he would not raise such an objection. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 20, 2010 JOSEPH C SPERO United States Magistrate Judge 2