Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 332

ORDER regarding the ongoing discovery dispute and potential recording of the January 6 hearing. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs and proponents continue to dispute the appropriate scope of discovery. Doc ##314, 325. The dispute

involves plaintiffs' request for documents and depositions of the defendant-intervenors. for court involvement. Resolution of the dispute appears to call The court will discuss the deposition

dispute at the January 6, 2010 hearing previously scheduled by the clerk with counsel for 10 AM that day. With regard to the dispute

about plaintiffs' document requests, the court pursuant to 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(A) refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero for appropriate hearing and resolution. Furthermore, in light of the recent change to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council's policy regarding cameras in district courts and the subsequent amendment of Civil LR 77-3 to conform with Ninth Circuit policy, the court is considering seeking approval from Chief Judge Kozinski to record or webcast the January 6 hearing. This request would be limited to the January 6 hearing

and would be without prejudice to a party's objections to recording or webcasting the trial proceedings. Recording the January 6

hearing would allow the parties to view the resulting video and, therefore, inform the parties' positions regarding any potential webcast or broadcast of the trial proceedings. It would also, of

course, be helpful to the court in deciding whether to permit recording or webcasting the trial proceedings. If any party

objects to this limited recording of the January 6 hearing, that party should so inform the court not later than January 4, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

27

26

25

24

1

3