Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. University of the Pacific

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 15, 2010

JANE DOE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

This case is pending before the court on defendant University of Pacific's ("defendant") motion for an award of attorneys' fees, presently set for hearing on November 19, 2010. The undersigned serves as a judge on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which will hold hearings at Duke University Law School in North Carolina this week. Thus, the court will be unavailable for the hearing in this case.

The court continues defendant's motion to December 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., the court's next regularly scheduled law and motion date. At the hearing, the court will address defendant's attorneys' fees motion, and as discussed below, the sealing of the record in this case.

The court notes that initially, plaintiff's counsel filed this complaint on March 18, 2009 under the pseudonym, "Jane Doe," and, during the course of the litigation, plaintiff's counsel made repeated requests or acquiesced to sealing of the record. Yet, for the first time, the day before the hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment on September 10, 2010, plaintiff's counsel requested that the hearing be open, and more recently, plaintiff's counsel requested that all briefing on the attorneys' fees motion be filed publicly. Significantly, however, no one, including plaintiff's counsel, has moved the court, to date, to unseal the record.

In light of plaintiff's counsel's conflicting positions, the court directs the parties to file simultaneous briefing on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 24, 2010, addressing the following:

(1) Whether a party requests the court unseal the record or any portion thereof.

(2) Whether there is a need to continue to seal the record, or any portion thereof, including the December 3 hearing.

(3) If a party seeks to keep the record, or any portion thereof, under seal, the party shall identify that portion of the record and specify the authority or reasons upon which it relies (e.g., the order permitting plaintiff to proceed as "Jane Doe"; the Protective Order issued by the magistrate judge pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; university disclosure restrictions pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g)).

(4) If a party seeks to unseal the record, or any portion thereof, the party shall identify the portion of the record and specify the authority or reasons upon which it relies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101115

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.