E.E v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 E.E., et al., Case No. 21-cv-07585-SI 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR VACATUR AND REQUEST FOR 9 Vv. DEPUBLICATION AND DENYING REMAINING PENDING MOTIONS AS 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., MOOT 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 95, 103, 131 qg 12 On August 11, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ joint (and unopposed) motion

13 || for vacatur and request for depublication. The Court has considered the parties’ arguments as set 14 || forth in the briefing and on the record. As discussed at the hearing, the Court rarely grants motions

15 || for vacatur and/or depublication, but finds that this is the exceptional case where such relief is A 16 || warranted because of the parties’ settlement, including the statutory amendments, and the fact that

3 17. || the motion was jointly made. Accordingly, with good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS the 1g || Parties’ Joint Motion and ORDERS as follows: 19 1. The Court’s decision granting Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, 29 || Published as E.E. vy. State of California, 570 F.Supp.3d 759 (N.D. Cal. 2021), is vacated and shall 21 be depublished; 22 2. The Court’s decision granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, 3 published as E.E. v. California, 2022 WL 597035 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022), is vacated and shall be 94 || depublished. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sian belaten 97 || Dated: August 11, 2022 es eee SUSAN ILLSTON 28 United States District Judge