Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 631

ORDER re: ex parte communications. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/12/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

MASTER CASE FILE
NO. C00-4599 TEH
ORDER RE: EX PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
This is an unusual case in which the parties have all agreed that the Court may engage

12 in ex parte communications. Throughout the history of this case, the Court has agreed to
13 repeated requests for in-person and telephonic ex parte meetings with counsel, as well as
14 with City, Department, and union leaders. However, over time, the Court has come to realize
15 that the time spent on these meetings has not yielded sufficient benefits to justify the
16 continued granting of such requests. Moreover, it appears that such meetings may have been
17 used, inadvertently or otherwise, for internal political gain, and the Court has no interest in
18 involving itself in city or department politics. Accordingly, while the Court will proceed
19 with all currently scheduled meetings, the Court now notifies all parties and Intervenor
20 Oakland Police Officers’ Association (“OPOA”) that direct requests to the Court for ex parte
21 communications – including meetings with City and Department leaders immediately
22 preceding the status conferences – will no longer be entertained. In addition, any written
23 correspondence submitted to the Court must be copied to counsel for all parties, as well as
24 counsel for the OPOA when the subject concerns matters within the scope of OPOA’s
25 intervention, unless prior consent from the opposing parties or permission from the Court to
26 submit a confidential document is obtained.
27

The Court recognizes that there may be times that ex parte communications remain

28 useful and productive, and the Court may continue to initiate through the Monitor a request

1 for an ex parte meeting if it believes one would be helpful. In addition, the parties and
2 OPOA may continue to request such meetings, but they must do so through the Monitor, who
3 will convey any such request to the Court, and are advised that requests will be granted only
4 in exceptional circumstances.
5

Any party or intervenor who objects to continued ex parte communications in

6 accordance with this order shall file an objection on or before September 19, 2011. Failure
7 to timely object shall be construed as continued consent. If any objections are received, then
8 consent from the objecting parties must be obtained prior to any future requests for ex parte
9 meetings.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13 Dated: 09/12/11
14

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2