Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 653

ORDER DISCHARGING #641 Order to Show Cause. The hearing scheduled for 5/3/2010 is VACATED. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2010)

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. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No

C 09-2292 VRW ORDER

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

On April 25, 2010, the court ordered the ACLU of Northern California and Equality California (together the "No on 8 groups") to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to produce documents responsive to the court's March 5, Doc #610, and March 22, Doc #623, orders. Doc #641. On April 27, 2010, the

No on 8 groups represented that they had produced all responsive non-privileged documents. Doc #649. On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs

and proponents informed the court that they believe the No on 8 groups' production complies with the March 5 and March 22 orders. Doc #651 (plaintiffs); Doc #652 (proponents). Accordingly, good cause having been shown, the order to show cause why the No on 8 groups should not be held in contempt for failing to produce documents as ordered, Doc #641, is hereby DISCHARGED. The hearing scheduled for May 3, 2010 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2