John Doe v. Regents of The University of California

S.D. California

John Doe v. Regents of The University of California

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 27, 2025·No. 3:22-cv-01506·Unknown

Opinion

JOHN DOE, Case No.: 22-CV-1506 JLS (VET)

Plaintiff, ORDER (1) SUA SPONTE STRIKING v. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 2 & 3, AND (2) SUA SPONTE MODIFYING BRIEFING CALIFORNIA, Defendant. (ECF Nos. 77, 82, 83) Presently before the Court is Defendant Regents of the University of California’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3. ECF No. 82, 83. Numerous exhibits to the Motions contain Plaintiff’s full name despite Plaintiff’s intention to proceed anonymously in this litigation. See ECF No. 76. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously currently remains pending, and while the Court takes the time to resolve the Motion, it sua sponte STRIKES Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 (ECF Nos. 82, 83) under its inherent authority to manage its docket. See Cahill v. Insider Inc., No. 24-2199, 2025 WL 838264, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar.18, 2025). If Defendant wishes to re-file its Motions in Limine, it SHALL follow proper sealing procedures for doing so, including lodging an unredacted version of the Motions, publicly filing a redacted version of the Motions, and publicly filing a motion to seal. Such procedures are explained in more detail in Section 34 of the Protective Order, see ECF No. 48 at 12, Section 2.j of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“ECF Manual’), see Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2. (July 22, 2024), and Civil Local Rule 79.2. Because Defendant did not file its Motions in Limine, until the afternoon before the opposition deadline, the Court also sua sponte modifies the briefing schedule as follows. Defendant SHALL RE-FILE its Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 on or before March 28, 2025. Both Parties SHALL FILE their oppositions to the Motions in Limine on or before April 4, 2025. Defendant is cautioned that requests to seal must be narrowly tailored—a party may not seek to seal an entire document where redaction would suffice. See Apex.Al, v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023). Dated: March 27, 2025 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHN DOE, Case No.: 22-CV-1506 JLS (VET)

Plaintiff, ORDER (1) SUA SPONTE STRIKING v. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 2 & 3, AND (2) SUA SPONTE MODIFYING BRIEFING CALIFORNIA, Defendant. (ECF Nos. 77, 82, 83) Presently before the Court is Defendant Regents of the University of California’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3. ECF No. 82, 83. Numerous exhibits to the Motions contain Plaintiff’s full name despite Plaintiff’s intention to proceed anonymously in this litigation. See ECF No. 76. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously currently remains pending, and while the Court takes the time to resolve the Motion, it sua sponte STRIKES Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 (ECF Nos. 82, 83) under its inherent authority to manage its docket. See Cahill v. Insider Inc., No. 24-2199, 2025 WL 838264, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar.18, 2025). If Defendant wishes to re-file its Motions in Limine, it SHALL follow proper sealing procedures for doing so, including lodging an unredacted version of the Motions, publicly filing a redacted version of the Motions, and publicly filing a motion to seal. Such procedures are explained in more detail in Section 34 of the Protective Order, see ECF No. 48 at 12, Section 2.j of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“ECF Manual’), see Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2. (July 22, 2024), and Civil Local Rule 79.2. Because Defendant did not file its Motions in Limine, until the afternoon before the opposition deadline, the Court also sua sponte modifies the briefing schedule as follows. Defendant SHALL RE-FILE its Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 on or before March 28, 2025. Both Parties SHALL FILE their oppositions to the Motions in Limine on or before April 4, 2025. Defendant is cautioned that requests to seal must be narrowly tailored—a party may not seek to seal an entire document where redaction would suffice. See Apex.Al, v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023). Dated: March 27, 2025 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

John Doe v. Regents of The University of California, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

John Doe v. Regents of The University of California (John Doe v. Regents of The University of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.