United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

Williams v. County of Sacramento

Williams v. County of Sacramento
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided June 30, 2021
Williams v. County of Sacramento

Trial Court Opinion

Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716) [email protected] Daniel T. Newman (SBN: 314937) [email protected] Scott C. Zienty (SBN: 324661) [email protected] BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4600 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 210 Sacramento, California 95834 Telephone: 866.920.1292 Facsimile: 916.927.2046 Gregory R. Davenport (SBN: 154403) [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY R. DAVENPORT 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 205 Stockton, California 95219 Telephone: 209.955.1999 Facsimile: 209.475.4951 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Thomas Williams Van Longyear (SBN: 84189) Carl L. Fessenden (SBN: 161494) [email protected] [email protected] Nicole M. Cahill (SBN: 287165) John R. Whitefleet (SBN: 213301) [email protected] [email protected] LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP PORTER SCOTT 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 350 University Avenue, Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95864 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: 916.974.8500 Telephone: 916.929.1481 Facsimile: 916.974.8510 Facsimile: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendant, Attorneys for Defendant County of Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova; Nathan Daniel; 21 Joseph Zalec; and Derek Hutchins UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS WILLIAMS, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00598-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RANCHO CORDOVA; NATHAN DANIEL; JOSEPH ZALEC; DEREK HUTCHINS; and Action Filed: March 18, 2020 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Trial Date: Not Set Defendants. ] The court APPROVES the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 21) subject to || the following clarification. Once this action is closed, “unless otherwise ordered, the court will || not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of” this protective order. E.D. Cal. ||/R. 141.1(f). Courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction after closure of || the case. See, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., || Feb. 3, 2017).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 || Dated: June 30, 2021 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

{Prepesed} Order Regarding Stipulated Protective Order

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.