Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 78

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Motion for Protective Order. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California the Northern District of California For

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Defendant(s). _______________________________/ Plaintiffs' motion for protective order first heard on January 28, 2009, was followed by meet and confer efforts of counsel in view of the court's concerns expressed at the hearing. After further discussion at the hearing on April 22, 2009, the court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part. The court rejects both new protective orders proposed by plaintiffs and county defendants for the reasons stated on the record. With regard to the original protective order proposed by plaintiffs, the court finds good cause to limit defendants' discovery of information pertaining to the immigration status of plaintiffs' witnesses in this matter (this finding does not apply to the three individual plaintiffs as the defendants already have information about their immigration status). Accordingly, No. C 08-4220 PJH ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendants may not attempt to elicit from witnesses in discovery, the following information: 1) immigration status, 2) citizenship or place of birth, 3) whether, when, where or how a witness has ever left or entered the United States or otherwise traveled, and 4)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

applications, if any, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (or its successor agency) of witnesses or their family members. Plaintiffs' request to similarly bar inquiry into other designated subjects is denied. The parties are free to negotiate any further terms that they wish, and submit a stipulation to the court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2