Legal Opinion

Doe 1 v. McAleenan

District Court, N.D. California

Decided September 17, 2020No. 5:18-cv-02349Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 10 v. FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 CHAD WOLF, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 379 12 Defendants. FILED UNDER SEAL 13 14 Defendants ask the Court to reconsider a portion of its May 27, 2020 order (Dkt. No. 343) 15 sustaining in part and denying in part defendants’ confidentiality designations for certain 16 discovery materials. Dkt. No. 379. Defendants contend that reconsideration is warranted in light 17 of the presiding…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  2. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. United States v. HelmstetterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  4. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EvansDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API