Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 724

ORDER finding as moot 414 Motion to Seal Document ; finding as moot 482 Motion to Seal Document (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 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 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 CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 14, 2010, plaintiffs moved to file, either under seal or as part of the public record, documents they wished to introduce at trial. Doc #414. The court resolved the matter during trial; accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED AS MOOT. On January 19, 2010, plaintiffs moved to re-open the deposition of Ronald Prentice and concurrently submitted supporting exhibits under seal. Doc #482. The motion to re-open was denied without further briefing; accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED AS MOOT. Pursuant to Civ LR 79-5(e), the court will hold the documents submitted under seal until August 17, 2010. If plaintiffs choose not to retrieve them before that date, the court will dispose of the documents. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2