From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, N.D. California
Aug 28, 2008
NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, THREE-JUDGE COURT, NO. C01-1351 TEH, THREE-JUDGE COURT (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008)

Summary

holding that government defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the deliberative process privilege applied to "an organizational chart," even though it was "marked as a draft"

Summary of this case from LatinoJustice PRLDEF v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

Opinion

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, THREE-JUDGE COURT, NO. C01-1351 TEH, THREE-JUDGE COURT.

August 28, 2008


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENTS


On August 27, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remove certain exhibits filed on August 25, 2008, because such exhibits inadvertently failed to redact e-mail addresses that Defendants contend are subject to the protective orders in these cases. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed redacted versions of the affected exhibits.

With good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. In the Plata docket, Exhibits G-N and FF-II in docket number 1421 shall be removed; the redacted versions of these exhibits may be found at docket number 1425. In the Coleman docket, Exhibits G-N and FF-II in docket number 2983 shall be removed; the redacted versions of these exhibits may be found at docket numbers 2987 and 2988.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

On behalf of the Court:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(3), a single judge on a three-judge court "may conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except as provided in this subsection. He may grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding, based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted, which order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the district court of three judges of an application for a preliminary injunction. A single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on the merits. Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the full court at any time before final judgment."


Summaries of

Coleman v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, N.D. California
Aug 28, 2008
NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, THREE-JUDGE COURT, NO. C01-1351 TEH, THREE-JUDGE COURT (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008)

holding that government defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the deliberative process privilege applied to "an organizational chart," even though it was "marked as a draft"

Summary of this case from LatinoJustice PRLDEF v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

finding that the apex doctrine applies to a state Governor

Summary of this case from Little v. Pritzker
Case details for

Coleman v. Schwarzenegger

Case Details

Full title:RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Aug 28, 2008

Citations

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, THREE-JUDGE COURT, NO. C01-1351 TEH, THREE-JUDGE COURT (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2008)

Citing Cases

Little v. Pritzker

Murillo v. Kohl's Corp., No. 16-CV-196, 2016 WL 6090862, at *2 (E.D.Wis. Oct. 18, 2016); In re Yasmin and…

LatinoJustice PRLDEF v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

At best, an organizational chart which "contains information on the potential structure and function of the…