65(c) invests the district court ‘with discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.’ ” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir.1999)). TaylorFailor asks that no security be required upon issuance of this temporary restraining order. The County has not opposed the request. A district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining its conduct. See id. Under the circumstances, because this is such a case, and because the rights implicated are constitutional and involve the public interest, the Court finds that no security is required. See Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1126 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Booth v. McManaman, 830 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1045
holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest holding that bond provisions of rule 684 are manda tory and that an injunction issued without a bond is void holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond