Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01235/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01235-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANNA SYKES, ANDREW No. 2:09-cv-01235-MCE-KJM

WITHAM, ADAM RICHARDS,

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, 

INC., and THE CALGUNS 

FOUNDATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

JOHN MCGINNESS, COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, ED PRIETO, and 

COUNTY OF YOLO,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The Court is in receipt of the request by Defendants County

of Sacramento and John McGinness for an additional order

pertaining to the stay on adjudication of any summary judgment

motion, as previously imposed pursuant to the Court’s Order of

September 1, 2009. Defendants point out that linking the stay to

the Ninth Circuit’s pending en banc decision in Nordyke v. King,

563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009) is no longer appropriate since

Nordyke, in turn, has been stayed awaiting the Supreme Court’s

decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 48 (2009). 

Case 2:09-cv-01235-MCE -DAD Document 40 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendants also ask that the stay on refiling a motion for

summary judgment after a decision on McDonald has been rendered

remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) additional days. 

According to Defendants, that additional stay is appropriate so

that the Plaintiffs in this matter can be deposed in accordance

with the substantive and legal guidelines to be established by

the Supreme Court. Defendants maintain that deposing the

Plaintiffs prior to a decision being rendered may be both

premature and potentially futile.

Although Plaintiffs have opposed Defendants’ request in this

regard, the Court believes that refraining from the subject

discovery at this time is proper since the McDonald decision may

narrow and/or eliminate the issues which will need to be

addressed in Plaintiffs’ depositions. Consequently, Defendants’

Request (Docket No. 38) is GRANTED. The stay on filing any

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication in this matter will

remain in effect for a period of sixty (60) days following the

Supreme Court’s issuance of a decision on McDonald v. City of

Chicago, supra, absent specific leave from this Court to the

contrary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01235-MCE -DAD Document 40 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2