United States of America et al v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER RE: #41 RESCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL AND APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 05/24/2010.(rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **E-filed 05/24/2010** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex rel. Robert Finney and Jacquelyn Finney, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ Relators Robert and Jacquelyn Finney have filed a motion seeking various forms of relief. Although the motion has not been noticed for hearing as required by Civil Local Rule 7, the Court will address it at this juncture in the interests of justice. 1 Good cause appearing, the status conference in this matter is hereby continued to June 24, 2010. The status conference shall be held telephonically. All parties must contact Court Conference at 866/582-6878 prior to the status conference to make an appearance. The Court Conference fee shall be waived for pro se Relators Robert and Jacquelyn Finney. In the event the date and time of the rescheduled status conference present difficulties for Relators, they may submit a letter suggesting specific dates and times that are No. C 08-2411 RS ORDER RESCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL AND APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Relators are directed to the Court's "Handbook For Litigants Without a Lawyer," available in the Clerk's office or at www.cand.uscourts.gov for guidance on filing any future motions. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 feasible for them. Relators' request for an order extending the time in which they must serve the complaint will be taken up at the status conference. Relators' request for reconsideration of the denial of their request for recusal of the undersigned is denied. Although their argument is not entirely clear, Relators appear to argue that recusal is warranted because the Court has not held an "evidentiary hearing" to inquire into certain allegations they have made. Until their present filing, Relators never moved for an "evidentiary hearing," but even if they had, their disagreement with a Court ruling is not a basis for recusal. To the extent that the request for recusal continues to be based on the undersigned's former association with the law firm of Morrison & Forrester, Relators' speculation that there "may" be a "sufficiently close connection" is unwarranted. Relators' request for appointment of a "special investigator" is denied. Relators contend that wrongdoing has occurred both within this action and with respect to visits to a website they maintain. As to the conduct of this action, the Court has previously explained that as a result of administrative error, the Electronic Case Filing System continued to show this case as being "under seal" when it was not, and showed Relators as represented by counsel when they were not.2 It appears that as a result, Relators were not always served with documents in this action when they should have been. There is no indication, however, of any intentional wrongdoing in this regard, either by the Government or by Court personnel. Relators' most adamant complaint is that they were not served with the Government's response to a motion they made in October of 2009.3 Although it appears to be a moot point now, the Government has certified that it served a copy of that response on Relators on May 21, 2010. While it is unfortunate that the document was not United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 As Relators point out, the Court's calendar still titled this case as "Under Seal v. Under Seal" until this date. That, however, was merely the result of the fact that it was put on calendar before the confusion about the sealing status was cleared up, and it was not updated thereafter. Relators' suggestion that something nefarious is going on is unfounded. 3 Relators assert that the response is not entered in the docket and "may not exist." Relators are mistaken. The document appears at docket no. 26. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 timely served, it does not appear that events would have unfolded differently had Relators received the document at an earlier juncture.4 Relators contend that their website has been visited by employees of Morrison & Forrester and the Justice Department. Although Relators characterize this as "illegal electronic surveillance," they have not explained how it would be improper or illegal for anyone to visit a website that Relators voluntarily make available to the general public to access.5 In any event, Relators have not shown that appointment of a "special investigator" is warranted or that an "evidentiary hearing" should be held at this juncture. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Dated: 05/24/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Relators express a concern that the Court's certificate of service of its March 23, 2010 only shows service on them, and not on the Government. Counsel for the Government is a registered efiler in this action, and therefore receives service through the ECF system as documented by the ECF receipt. The certificate of service is used to document the sending of hard copies to persons, such as Relators, who do not receive electronic notice. Relators have not suggested there was any "hacking" or access to some portion of their computer system not made available to the public to view. 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS CLERK'S NOTICE WAS MAILED TO: Robert Finney Jacquelyn Finney 1664 Buttercup Road Encinitas, CA 92024 DATED: 05/24/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system. 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?