Elena Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling

Filing 869

ORDER VACATING MARCH 5, 2010 ORDER; ORDER SETTING FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull granting 856 Motion to Amend/Correct; (pvtlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELENA DEL CAMPO, ET AL., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AMERICAN CORRECTIVE ) COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 01-21151 JW (PVT) ORDER VACATING MARCH 5, 2010 ORDER; ORDER SETTING FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE [Docket Nos. 849, 856] On January 20, 2010, plaintiffs Christine Smith, Ashley Henderson, Lois Artz and Jana Sperling in an unrelated action, entitled Christine Smith, et al. v. Levine Leichtman Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-0010 JSW (N.D. Cal.), moved to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order in the above-captioned action. See Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene and to Modify the January 3, 2007 Stipulated Protective Order. (Docket No. 786). On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs Elena del Campo, Ashorina Medina and Lisa Johnston's administrative motion to relate the two cases was denied. See Order Denying Administrative Motion to Relate Cases dated January 22, 2010. ("January 22, 2010 Order"). (Docket No. 793). In footnote 1 of the January 22, 2010 Order, the court noted that the parties had filed various other motions that were related to the administrative motion to relate cases and they were deemed moot. Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order was ORDER, page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 among the various other motions deemed moot. January 22, 2010 Order at 1. On March 5, 2010, plaintiffs' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order was granted. See Order Granting Motion of Plaintiffs' in Unrelated Case to Intervene and to Modify the January 3, 2007 Stipulated Protective Order dated March 5, 2010. ("March 5, 2010 Order"). (Docket No. 846). On March 8, 2010, non-party National Corrective Group, Inc. ("NCG") filed a notice of discrepancy between the court's rulings on intervenors' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order. See Docket No. 849. Specifically, non-party NCG sought clarification as to whether the March 5, 2010 Order is void ab initio in light of the prior January 22, 2010 Order. Alternatively, non-party NCG requested the opportunity to oppose plaintiffs' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order. Additionally, plaintiffs (in the above-captioned action) Elena del Campo, Ashorina Medina and Lisa Johnston and plaintiffs Christine Smith, Ashley Henderson, Lois Artz and Jana Sperling (in the unrelated action) moved the court to correct the clerical error in the January 22, 2010 Order that had ruled that plaintiffs' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order was moot. See Docket no. 856. Based on a referral of this matter by the district court and having reviewed the papers, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that docket no. 786 is not moot. Based on the inconsistent rulings, non-party NCG shall have an opportunity to oppose plaintiffs' motion to intervene and to modify the January 3, 2007 stipulated protective order. Accordingly, the March 5, 2010 Order is vacated. Non-party NCG may file its opposition no later than April 2, 2010. Plaintiffs may file their reply, if any, no later than April 16, 2010. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the motion is taken under submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 15, 2010 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge ORDER, page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER, page 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?