Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mayfield v. Orozco, 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170127l73 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS REGENTS, UCDHS, HALES, COUNTY, AND OROZCO'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONS [Filed Concurrently Herewith: 1) Opps To MSJs; 2) Opps Undisputed Facts; 3) Pltfs' Disputed Facts; 4) Comp Evid Vols 1-14; 5) Ntc Lodging; 6) Ntc Of Req to Seal; 7) Req to Seal; 8) Obj to Evid; 9) Prop Order Granting Obj to Evid; 10) Mtn to Strike; and 11) Pr
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS REGENTS, UCDHS, HALES, COUNTY, AND OROZCO'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONS

[Filed Concurrently Herewith: 1) Opps To MSJs; 2) Opps Undisputed Facts; 3) Pltfs' Disputed Facts; 4) Comp Evid Vols 1-14; 5) Ntc Lodging; 6) Ntc Of Req to Seal; 7) Req to Seal; 8) Obj to Evid; 9) Prop Order Granting Obj to Evid; 10) Mtn to Strike; and 11) Prop Order Granting Mtn to Strike]

ORDER

After considering Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents, any opposing papers, all other matters presented to the court, and good cause having been found, the Court hereby authorizes the following documents to be filed under seal:

1) Plaintiffs' Opposition to County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; 2) Opposition to County Defendants' Undisputed Facts; 3) Plaintiffs' Disputed Facts in Support of the Opposition to County Defendants; 4) Plaintiffs' Opposition to JPS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; 5) Opposition to JPS Defendants' Undisputed Facts; 6) Plaintiffs' Disputed Facts in Support of the Opposition to JPS Defendants; 7) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants Orozco's Motion for Summary Judgment; 8) Opposition to Defendant Orozco's Undisputed Facts; 9) Plaintiffs' Disputed Facts in Support of the Opposition to Defendant Orozco; 10) Compendium of Evidence (Vols. 1-14) in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants; 11) Motion to Strike the Declaration of Joseph Penn; Declaration of Lori Rifkin and Exhibit A in Support; and, 12) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike.

Other than the Court and its staff, the foregoing records will be visible and accessible to the following individuals only:

1) The real parties in interest, in the case enumerated above; 2) Barbara Enloe Hadsell, Dan Stormer, Lori Rifkin, Josh Piovia-Scott, Acrivi Coromelas, and Caitlan McLoon of HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP, as counsel for Plaintiffs James Joshua Mayfield, James Allison Mayfield, Jr., and Terri Mayfield, in the case enumerated above; 3) Van Longyear, Peter Zilaff, and Nicole Cahill of LONGYEAR, O'DEA & LAVRA, LLP, as counsel for Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, and Rick Pattison, in the case enumerated above; 4) Robert F. Tyler, Jr., Neal C. Lutterman, Scott Gassaway, and Bianca S. Watts of WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP, as counsel for Defendants University of California Davis Health System, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, and Dr. Robert Hales, in the case enumerated above; 5) John Whitefleet and Adam Debow of PORTER SCOTT, as counsel for Defendant Ivan Orozco, in the case enumerated above; and 6) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel referred to in subparts (a)-(d) immediately above, including stenographic deposition reports or videographers retained in connection with this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer