Mayfield v. Orozco, et al.
Filing
204
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/2017 GRANTING 196 Notice of Request to Seal Documents filed in support of defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
VAN LONGYEAR, CSB NO. 84189
PETER C. ZILAFF, CSB NO. 272658
NICOLE M. CAHILL, CSB NO. 287165
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, California 95864-5923
Tel: (916) 974-8500 Fax: (916) 974-8510
Attorneys for Defendants, County of Sacramento, Scott Jones,
James Lewis and Rick Pattison
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
Estate of JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, by
and through LISA BERG, as Conservator;
JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR.;
and TERRI MAYFIELD,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiffs,
vs.
IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity;
SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his individual
and official capacity; JAMES LEWIS, in his
individual and official capacity; RICK
PATTISON, in his individual and official
capacity; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
HEALTH SYSTEM; DR. GREGORY
SOKOLOV, in his individual capacity; DR.
ROBERT HALES, in his individual
capacity; and Does 1-5,
20
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC
ORDER GRANTING COUNTY
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date:
Time:
Ctrm:
Trial date:
March 7, 2017
1:30 p.m.
6
May 1, 2017
Defendants.
21
22
Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis and Rick Pattison Request
23
to Seal Portions of Documents Filed in Support of Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
24
Motion for Summary Judgment, is GRANTED.
25
IT IS ORDERED that:
26
1.
Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary
27
Judgment, Objection to Plaintiffs’ Evidence in Support of Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
28
Summary Judgment, and Declaration of Rick Heyer shall be filed under seal;
[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Request to Seal Portions of Documents File in Support
of Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 1
1
2
2.
Other than the Court and its staff, the foregoing records will be visible and
accessible to the following individuals only:
3
(a)
Van Longyear, Peter Zilaff and Nicole Cahill of LONGYEAR, O’DEA &
4
LAVRA, LLP and associate attorneys in their office, as counsel for Defendants COUNTY OF
5
SACRAMENTO, SCOTT JONES, JAMES LEWIS and RICK PATTISON, in the case
6
enumerated above;
7
(b)
John Whitefleet and Adam DeBow of PORTER SCOTT, and associate
8
attorneys in their office, as counsel for Defendant IVAN OROZCO, in the case enumerated
9
above;
(c)
10
Robert F. Tyler, Neal C. Lutterman, Scott Gassaway and Bianca S. Watts
11
of WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP and associate attorneys in their
12
office, as counsel for Defendants UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH
13
SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV, and ROBERT HALES, in the case enumerated above;
(d)
14
15
Barbara Enloe Hadsell, Dan Stormer, Joshua Piovia-Scott, Acrivi
Coromelas, Caitlin McLoon and Lori Rifkin of HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP and
associate attorneys in their office, as counsel for Plaintiffs JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD,
16
JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR., and TERRI MAYFIELD, in the case enumerated above;
17
and
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(e)
Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by
counsel referred to in subparts (a-d) immediately above, including stenographic deposition
reports or videographers retained in connection with this action.
3.
The foregoing documents and records contained will remain under seal until the
conclusion of this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/2/2017
/s/ John A. Mendez__________
The Honorable John A. Mendez
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Request to Seal Portions of Documents File in Support
of Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?