Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL B JOHNSON III,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, CHEVRON

CORPORATION LONG TERM DISABILITY

PLAN ORGANIZATION, CHEVRON

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

COMPANY, CATHERINE DREW,

KATHRYN M. GALLACHER, SUSAN J.

SOLGER, SELLERS STOUGH, KRYSTAL

TRAN, DEBBIE WONG, and GARY A.

YAMASHITA,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05756 WHA

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL

The Court has received plaintiff’s ex parte motion to file under seal. According to the

docket, however, defendants have not yet been served. The Court will not rule on any motion

until defendants have been served. According to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, defendants must be served within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff

is ordered to inform the Court when the complaint and all motions have been served upon

defendants in a timely manner. Plaintiff shall also serve defendants all orders requesting a

response. The hearing set for January 31, 2008, for plaintiff’s motion to file under seal shall be

VACATED.

Once plaintiff’s ex parte motion to file under seal has been properly served upon

defendants, defendants will have SEVEN DAYS to respond. The Court will likely decide the

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 18 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

matter on the papers and will advise if a hearing is necessary. Defendants should be mindful of

the compelling reasons standard of the Kamakana decision in framing their response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 18 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2