Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 526

ORDER to non-parties CAEBR, Equality California and the ACLU to respond to Doc #472 not later than 2/2/10. Plaintiffs may also file a response. Proponents' reply, if any, shall be filed not later than 2/5/10. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 526 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document526 Filed01/26/10 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. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document526 Filed01/26/10 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 The court has received proponents' motion to compel compliance with document subpoenas directed at three non-parties: (1) Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights; (2) Equality California; and (3) No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Doc #472. The non-parties are directed to file any opposition to the merits of proponents' motion not later than February 2, 2010. Plaintiffs may also file any response they wish the court to consider not later than February 2, 2010. Proponents' reply memorandum, if any, shall be filed not later than February 5, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2