Pierce et al v. County of Sierra et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/25/12 ORDERING the parties have met and conferred regarding a briefing schedule in which to motion this court for an order determining this court's subject matter jurisdiction. The parties have a greed as follows: Hearing Date for Motion set for September 10, 2012; Plaintiffs' Opening Brief due August 10, 2012; Defendants' Opposition Brief due August 24, 2012; Plaintiffs' Reply Brief due August 31, 2012; The parties' proposed briefing schedule is adopted. However, the parties' stipulation concerning filing motion briefs under Seal is not approved since it appears over-broad, and has not been shown to be authorized under applicable sealing law. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES J. PIERCE, an individual;
DAWN M. PIERCE, an individual,

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
v.

15

COUNTY OF SIERRA, CALIFORNIA, a
political subdivision of the
State of California; OFFICE OF
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SIERRA;
JACOB ALLEN MURRAY, an
individual,

16

Defendants.
________________________________

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-02280-GEB-EFB
ORDER

17
18
19

The parties state as follows in the Joint Status Report
Regarding Briefing Schedule filed July 19, 2012 (“JSR”):

22

[T]he parties . . . have met and conferred
regarding a briefing schedule in which to motion
this court for an order determining this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. The parties have
agreed as follows:

23

Hearing Date for Motion:

September 10, 2012

24

Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief:

August 10, 2012

25

Defendants’ Opposition Brief: August 24, 2012

26

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief:

20
21

27

August 31, 2012

(ECF No. 18, 1:22-2:1.)

28
1

1

The parties also state in JSR:

2

Defendants have raised concerns regarding the
disclosure of Defendant Murray’s addresses, past
and present, given the protections afforded
information relating to law enforcement personnel
under California Penal Code § 832.7. Since
Defendant Murray’s residence on the date the action
was filed is relevant to the issue of diversity
jurisdiction, and without waiving any arguments
against the asserted protections, counsel for
plaintiffs is willing to stipulate that the motion
briefs and any exhibits referenced above be filed
under seal.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Id. at 2:2-7.

10

The parties’ proposed briefing schedule is adopted. However,

11

the parties’ stipulation concerning filing motion briefs under seal is

12

not approved since it appears over-broad, and has not been shown to be

13

authorized under applicable sealing law.

14

Dated:

July 25, 2012

15
16
17

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2