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
CA9Doc 348

CA9Doc 348

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
ORDER - passing the decision on the question of the trial recordings back to the district court. Filed 4/27/2011
ORDER - passing the decision on the question of the trial recordings back to the district court. Filed 4/27/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Apr 27, 2011
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





UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN M. PERRY; et al.,Plaintiffs - Appellees,CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO,Intervenor-Plaintiff -Appellee,v.EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his officialcapacity as Governor of California; et al.,Defendants,andDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al.,Intervenor-Defendants -Appellants. No. 10-16696D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW Northern District of California,San FranciscoORDER Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.Appellants have moved this court to order the Plaintiffs and former DistrictJudge Vaughn Walker to return copies of the video recordings of the trial proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and have moved to unsealthe video recordings.
 APR 27 2011
Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 1 of 3 ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1
2We construe Appellants’ motion as a motion to enforce, against Plaintiffsand Judge Walker, the protective order entered by the district court,
Doc. No.425 (at ¶ 7.3) & Doc. No. 672,
 Perry v. Schwarzengger 
, No. 3:09-cv-02292 (N.D.Cal.), and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion as a motion to lift that order. Although jurisdiction over the merits of the decision below, including the judgment, has passed to this court, the district court has not been divested of its jurisdiction over ancillary matters, such as protective orders.
Cf. Griggs v. Provident Consumer  Discount Co.
, 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers jurisdiction on the courtof appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the caseinvolved in the appeal 
.”) (emphasis added);
 see, e.g.
Campbell v. Blodgett 
, 982F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court retains jurisdiction to issuediscovery order);
Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co.
, 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1983) (district court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorney’s fees).Because the district court issued the protective order and has the power togrant the parties all the relief they seek, should relief be warranted, we direct theClerk to TRANSFER Appellants’ motion (Doc. No. 338), Plaintiffs’ oppositionand cross-motion (Doc. No. 340), Appellants’ reply and opposition (Doc. No. 346),Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. No. 347), Judge Walker’s letter (Doc. No. 339), and Media
Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 2 of 3 ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1
3Coalition’s motion to intervene (Doc. No. 343) and joinder in Plaintiffs’ motion tounseal (Doc. No. 345), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:09-cv-02292-JW.
Case: 10-16696 04/27/2011 Page: 3 of 3 ID: 7732263 DktEntry: 348-1

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)//-->