State of California v. Health and Human Services et al

Filing 62

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 60 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE
STATE OF DELAWARE; THE STATE OF
MARYLAND; THE STATE OF NEW
YORK; THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA,

Case No. 4:17-cv-05783-HSG
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE
STATES’ UNOPPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR THE
STATES’ REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17

23

ERIC D. HARGAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; R.
ALEXANDER ACOSTA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; STEVEN
MNUCHIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; DOES 1-100,

24

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22

25
26
27
28
1
[Proposed] Order Granting the States’ Unopposed Administrative Motion to Exceed Page Limit for the
States’ Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (4:17-cv-05783-HSG)

1

Upon consideration of the States’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit on

2

the States’ Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the Motion), any response

3

thereto, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. It is

4

further ORDERED that the States’ Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

5

shall not exceed 18 pages.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

12/5/2017
Dated: ___________________________

__________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

10
11
12

52715007.docx

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[Proposed] Order Granting the States’ Unopposed Administrative Motion to Exceed Page Limit for the
States’ Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (4:17-cv-05783-HSG)