John Doe v. Roe 1 ( 2023 )

FILED
JUN 16 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE, No. 22-15757
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06822-JD
v.
ORDER
ROE 1,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SELNA,* District Judge.
John Does’ Motions at Docket Nos. 11 and 14 are denied as moot in view of
the fact that the identity of John Doe has been made public.
John Does’ request for judicial notice at Docket No. 27 is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
*The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of
California, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 16 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE, No. 22-15757
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06822-JD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROE 1,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 31, 2023
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SELNA,** District Judge.
Roe 1 (“Roe”) seeks to appeal the district court’s April 19, 2022 order “to
the extent” that it denied her motion to vacate the district court’s October 5, 2020
order (“Order”), which restrains Roe from disclosing John Doe’s (“Doe”) identity.
We dismiss this appeal as moot.
Because we construe the Order as a temporary restraining order, the Order
expired on October 19, 2020. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). The Order was a
temporary restraining order because it was issued ex parte and “specifically”
enjoined Roe and third parties from publishing Doe’s identity. FED. R. CIV. P.
65(d)(1). It cannot be considered a preliminary injunction because the district
court did not provide notice to the adverse parties or hold an adversary hearing.
FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a). But cf. Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 87 (1974).
Because the district court never extended the temporary restraining order on the
record, it expired within fourteen days. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). Thus, the
expiration of the Order renders this appeal moot. See, e.g., Where Do We Go
Berkeley v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 32 F.4th 852, 857 (9th Cir. 2022).
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
**
The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
2