Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al
Filing
748
ORDER GRANTING 747 Administrative Motion for Relief from General Order No. 62. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/04/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012)
1
2
3
4
JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888
Law Offices of John L. Burris
Airport Corporate Centre
7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
Telephone:
510.839.5200
Facsimile:
510.839.3882
5
6
10
JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043
JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968
Law Offices of James B. Chanin
3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California 94705
Telephone:
510.848.4752
Facsimile:
510.848.5819
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
DELPHINE ALLEN; et al;
18
MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH
Plaintiffs,
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM GENERAL
ORDER NO. 62 RE: EFILING SEALED
DOCUMENTS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
19
20
vs.
21
22
23
Hearing Date: December 13, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor
The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED
24
25
26
27
28
1
Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH
Relief from General Order No. 62 re Filing Sealed Documents
1
RATIVE MOTION AND
DECLARATION OF PLAIN
2
3
I, JULIE M. HOUK, DECLARE:
4
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am one of the
5
attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in the within action. I have personal knowledge of the matters
6
stated herein and would testify to the same if called to do so in Court.
7
8
2.
s scheduled to take place on
December 13, 2012.
9
10
4. Plaintiffs currently have in in excess of 70 exhibits that will be filed in support of this
11
motion and anticipate that it will require a significant amount of time, including after normal hours to
12
complete the efiling.
13
5. A small number of the moving papers require redactions pursuant to the standing
14
protective order in this case and/or must be sealed pursuant to other orders of this Court, such as DKT
15
Nos. 577 and 712.
16
17
6. Plaintiffs are asking for relief from the requirements of General Order 62 and instead,
allow Plaintiffs to file and serve their motion papers as follows:
18
a. Allow Plaintiffs to file their redacted moving papers via efiling on October 4, 2012;
19
b. Allow Plaintiffs to email the unredacted version of the moving papers
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
counsel on October 4, 2012; and,
c. Allow Plaintiffs to send the sealed, unredacted copy of their moving papers and chambers
copy of the redacted version to the Court via overnight mail on October 4, 2012.
7. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury. Executed this 4th
day of October 2012, at Dublin, NH. .
___________/S/___________________________
Julie M. Houk
Attorney for Plaintiffs
27
28
2
Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH
Relief from General Order No. 62 re Filing Sealed Documents
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Having considered the Administrative Motion of Plaintiffs and for good cause shown,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED. P
5
J
RT
11
H
ER
12
13
R NIA
n
rso
. Hende
helton E
udge T
NO
10
D
DERE
_______________________________
SO OR ED
IT I E.
Thelton S Henderson
DIFI
AS MO
Judge of the United States District Court
FO
9
4
Dated: October __, 2012
LI
8
A
7
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
October 4, 2012.
UNIT
ED
6
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. C00-4599 TEH
Relief from General Order No. 62 re Filing Sealed Documents
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?