Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

[Proposed] Order (CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

OPTOMETRISTS & OPTICIANS, 

LENSCRAFTERS, INC., EYE CARE 

CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, AND BRIAN J. STIGER, 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE 

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 

Defendants.

Case No. CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

AND TO FILE PUBLIC VERSIONS 

SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS’ REPLY 

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON PIKE 

Date: April 19, 2010 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 4 

Judge: The Honorable Lawrence K.

Karlton 

Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State 

of California, and Brian J. Stiger, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of 

Consumer Affairs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal and to File Public Versions Supporting 

Defendants’ Reply on Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike having been duly considered; 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 555 Filed 04/08/10 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 

[Proposed] Order (CIV-S-02-1464 LKK DAD) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and that Defendants 

are permitted to file the following documents pursuant to their request: 

1. Supplemental Declaration of Philip M. Parker, PhD Supporting Defendants’ Reply on 

Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike – Public and Under Seal Versions. 

2. Defendants’ Reply Supporting Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts 

in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike – Under Seal Version only. 

3. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections and Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations and Evidence Submitted in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Pike – Under Seal Version only. 

4. Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to, and Motion to Strike, Declarations and 

Evidence Submitted by Plaintiffs on Motions for Summary Judgment on Pike – Under Seal 

Version only. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request that the Court not “indefinitely” seal 

any documents filed in conjunction with the pending dispositive Motions for Summary Judgment 

on Pike or Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment on Pike will be further considered 

following resolution of the parties’ summary judgment motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 8, 2010 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 555 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2