Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Walker Order Denying Stay of Discovery 10-23-09

Walker Order Denying Stay of Discovery 10-23-09

Ratings: (0)|Views: 156|Likes:
Published by Michael Ginsborg
Judge Walker's order denying motion for stay of discovery, filed 10/23/09, in Perry v. Schwarzenneger, Case No. 3:2009cv02292 (N.D.Cal.)
Judge Walker's order denying motion for stay of discovery, filed 10/23/09, in Perry v. Schwarzenneger, Case No. 3:2009cv02292 (N.D.Cal.)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Michael Ginsborg on Oct 24, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY JZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in hisofficial capacity as governor ofCalifornia; EDMUND G BROWN JR, inhis official capacity as attorneygeneral of California; MARK BHORTON, in his official capacityas director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health andstate registrar of vitalstatistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in herofficial capacity as deputydirector of health information &strategic planning for theCalifornia Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisofficial capacity as clerk-recorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in hisofficial capacity as registrar-recorder/county clerk for theCounty of Los Angeles,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL JKNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ,HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OFCALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8,Defendant-Intervenors./ NoC 09-2292 VRWORDER 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document237 Filed10/23/09 Page1 of 13
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
2Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents ofProposition 8 (“proponents”) move for a limited stay of discovery pending resolution of a purported appeal or mandamus petition inthe alternative. Doc #220. Plaintiffs oppose any delay indiscovery in light of the upcoming trial date and ask the court tocompel proponents to respond to their discovery requests in sevendays. Doc #225.To obtain a stay, proponents “must establish that [theyare] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely tosuffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, thatthe balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that aninjunction is in the public interest.” Winter v Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc, -- US --, 129 SCt 365, 374 (2008). “possibility” of success is “too lenient.” Id at 375; see also American Trucking Associations, Inc v City of Los Angeles, 559 F3d1046, 1052 (9th Cir 2009). Because, for the reasons explained below, proponents have met no part of this test, proponents’ motionfor a stay is DENIED.IProponents are unlikely to succeed on their appeal or mandamus petition because (1) the court of appeals lacksjurisdiction over the appeal and mandamus petition and (2) theappeal lacks merit.\\\\\\\\
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document237 Filed10/23/09 Page2 of 13
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
3 A Proponents have noticed an appeal of the court’s October1 order, Doc #214, “to the extent it denies [proponents’] Motionfor a Protective Order (Doc #187).” Doc #222. The motion for a protective order cites to National Ass’n for the A of C P v Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) (“NAACP”) (invoking a qualified First Amendment privilege to protect NAACP rank-and-file membership listsagainst disclosure), and its progeny to claim a qualified First Amendment privilege against discovery of any of proponents’communications with third parties. Doc #187. Proponents’docketing statement in the Ninth Circuit describes the October 1order as an “INTERLOCUTORY DECISION APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT.” Id at5. However proponents may characterize the October 1 order, it is manifestly not a final judgment appealable as of right under 28 USC§ 1291, nor did proponents seek, or the court find suitable, aninterlocutory appeal under 28 USC § 1292(b). Proponents’ right toseek review of the October 1 order must therefore rest on thecollateral order doctrine or on grounds warranting mandamus by thecourt of appeals. Neither of these, however, provides an adequatefoundation for the instant appeal or mandamus petition.1The collateral order doctrine allows appeal under section1291 of “a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate thelitigation but must, in the interest of achieving a healthy legalsystem, nonetheless be treated as final.” Digital Equipment Corp vDesktop Direct, Inc, 511 US 863, 867 (1994). The October 1 orderwas not such a decision.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document237 Filed10/23/09 Page3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->