McAleenan

Doe 1 v. McAleenan

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 20205:18-cv-02349California2,522 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

v. FOR RECONSIDERATION

CHAD WOLF, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 379 Defendants. FILED UNDER SEAL

13 Defendants ask the Court to reconsider a portion of its May 27, 2020 order (Dkt. No. 343) sustaining in part and denying in part defendants’ confidentiality designations for certain discovery materials. Dkt. No. 379. Defendants contend that reconsideration is warranted in light of the presiding judge’s subsequent decision denying plaintiffs leave to add the FBI as a defendant in the action and to add allegations concerning the FBI’s adoption of a particular vetting threshold for refugee applications. Id. Plaintiffs oppose reconsideration, arguing that the intervening decision is not a material change of law or fact and that defendants are not entitled to a different result…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.