Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 771

ORDER of USCA (Attachments: #1 part 2, #2 part 3, #3 part 4, #4 part 5, #5 part 6, #6 part 7, #7 part 8, #8 part 9, #9 part 10)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)

Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 1 of 3

ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1

FILED
APR 27 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISTIN M. PERRY; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Intervenor-Plaintiff -

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

No. 10-16696
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Northern District of California,
San Francisco

ORDER

Appellee,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official
capacity as Governor of California; et al.,
Defendants,
and
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants Appellants.

Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellants have moved this court to order the Plaintiffs and former District
Judge Vaughn Walker to return copies of the video recordings of the trial
proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and have moved to unseal
the video recordings.

Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 2 of 3

ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1

We construe Appellants’ motion as a motion to enforce, against Plaintiffs
and Judge Walker, the protective order entered by the district court, see Doc. No.
425 (at ¶ 7.3) & Doc. No. 672, Perry v. Schwarzengger, No. 3:09-cv-02292 (N.D.
Cal.), and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion as a motion to lift that order. Although
jurisdiction over the merits of the decision below, including the judgment, has
passed to this court, the district court has not been divested of its jurisdiction over
ancillary matters, such as protective orders. Cf. Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) (“The filing of a notice of
appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the court
of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal.”) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Campbell v. Blodgett, 982
F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court retains jurisdiction to issue
discovery order); Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.
1983) (district court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorney’s fees).
Because the district court issued the protective order and has the power to
grant the parties all the relief they seek, should relief be warranted, we direct the
Clerk to TRANSFER Appellants’ motion (Doc. No. 338), Plaintiffs’ opposition
and cross-motion (Doc. No. 340), Appellants’ reply and opposition (Doc. No. 346),
Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. No. 347), Judge Walker’s letter (Doc. No. 339), and Media
2

Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 3 of 3

ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1

Coalition’s motion to intervene (Doc. No. 343) and joinder in Plaintiffs’ motion to
unseal (Doc. No. 345), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 3:09-cv-02292-JW.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3