Jackson et al v. Oak Grove School District et al

Filing 75

ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO DECIDE PROTECTIVE ORDER;VACATING 10/5/2009 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Finding as Moot 71 Motion to Appear by Telephone; Denying 65 MOTION for Judge Ware to decide protective order. Motions te rminated: 71 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at Further Case Management Conference filed by Adam Fiss, 65 MOTION for Judge Ware to decide protective order re 57 Proposed Order filed by Evelyn Jackson, Troy Jackson. Joint Case Management Co nference statement due 10/16/2009, Further Case Management Conference set for 10/26/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Please see Order for further specifics. Signed by Judge James Ware on 9/29/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Troy Jackson, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-05376 JW ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL; DENYING MOTION TO DECIDE PROTECTIVE ORDER; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Oak Grove School District, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs have requested and are in need of counsel to assist them in this matter. On April 30, 2009, the Court referred the case to the Federal Pro Bono Project. (See Docket Item No. 42.) On September 23, 2009, the Federal Pro Bono Project notified the Court that volunteer attorneys were willing to undertake this representation. (See Docket Item No. 68.) Three volunteer attorneys entered their appearances the same day. (See Docket Item No. 69.) Accordingly, attorneys Denise De Mory, Sriranga Veeraraghavan, and Lindsay White, all of Howrey LLP, are hereby appointed counsel for Plaintiffs Evelyn, Troy, and J.J. Jackson in this matter. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Decide Protective Order.1 On September 2, 2009, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd issued a Protective Order Protecting Privacy Rights of Minors. (hereafter, "Order," Docket Item No. 63.) Plaintiffs contend that the Order is premature since the Court gave them until September 25, 2009 to secure new counsel. (Plaintiffs' Motion at 1-

(Requesting Honorable Judge James Ware to Decide Protective Order, If Protective Order is Not Deemed Premare [sic] Due to Case Being Stayed and Plaintiffs' Counsel to Accept Case by September 25, 2009, hereafter, "Plaintiffs' Motion," Docket Item No. 65.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.) The Court finds good cause to provide time for newly appointed Plaintiffs' counsel to review the Order and to take any further action, if necessary, after they have had the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion and invites Plaintiffs' counsel to file proper objections to Magistrate Lloyd's Order as they see fit. In light of appointment of counsel, the Court continues the Case Management Conference currently set for October 5, 2009 to October 26, 2009 at 10 a.m. in order to provide new counsel time to meet and confer with their clients and opposing counsel.2 On or before October 16, 2009, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement.3 The Statement shall include, among other things, the parties' proposed schedule on how the case should proceed and a good faith discovery plan with a proposed date for the close of all discovery.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 29, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

In light of the Court's Order continuing the Case Management Conference set for October 5, 2009, Counsel for Defendant Adam Fiss' Motion to Appear Telephonically is DENIED as moot. (See Motion by Counsel for Defendant Adam Fiss to Appear and Participate Telephonically at Further Case Management Conference, Docket Item No. 71.) Since the October 26, 2009 Case Management Conference will be the first with newly appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court expects counsel for all parties to appear in person and will not grant any further requests to appear telephonically. The Court notes that on September 24 and 25, 2009, the parties each filed separate Case Management Statements. (See Docket Item Nos. 70 and 72.) For the October 16, 2009 deadline, the parties shall file their Case Management Statement jointly. 2
3

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Deanna Jean Mouser [e-mail] Denise M. De Mory [e-mail] John Stanley Adler [e-mail] Lindsay M. White [e-mail] Maureen A. Folan [e-mail] Sriranga Raghavan Veeraraghavan [e-mail]

Dated: September 29, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28