McCarthy et al v. Barrett et al

Filing 53

ORDER of the Court re 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Protective Order. The Court requests Defendants respond to the Motion for Reconsideration by 1/4/11. The Motion for Reconsideration is ReNoted for 1/7/2011. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

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 - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA THOMAS MCCARTHY; PHAN NGUYEN; ELIZABETH RIVIERA GOLDSTEIN; LEAH COAKLEY; PATRICK EDELBACHER; and CHARLES BEVIS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES BARRETT; HANNAH HEILMAN; ALAN ROBERTS; TODD KITSELMAN; BARRY PARIS; THOMAS STRICKLAND; MICHAEL MILLER; ROBERT SHEEHAN; DONALD RAMSDELL; and CITY OF TACOMA (TPD), Defendants. Case No. C09-5120 RBL ORDER REQUESTING A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. #35]

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #52] of the Court's Order [Dkt. #51] on Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order. [Dkt. #35]. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration that portion of the Order which denied without prejudice their request for information about surveillance occurring after the March 2007 protests at the heart of this case (specifically, "from 2005 to present"). Plaintiffs argue that they have in fact asserted claims related to subsequent surveillance. Under Local Rule 7(e)(3), the Court Requests that the Defendants Respond to the Motion, including specifically the claim that the requested material is discoverable under the allegations of this case.

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

Any Response should not exceed 5 pages in length, and should be filed by January 4, 2011. The Motion for Reconsideration is Re-noted to January 7, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of December, 2010.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER Page - 2