AF Holdings LLC v. Doe
Filing
112
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 111 Ex Parte Application (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2013)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
EUREKA DIVISION
5
6
AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-02396-EMC (NJV)
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
ORDER DENYING SECOND EX PARTE
APPLICATION
8
9
JOE NAVASCA,
Re: Dkt. No. 111
Defendants.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiff filed a second ex parte application asking to submit -- in camera -- an affidavit
13
explaining why Mark Lutz did not appear at the August 28, 2013 hearing. Doc. No. 111.
14
Whereas the first application sought to file under seal a declaration addressing both the reasons for
15
Lutz’s absence and the substantive matters the court ordered AF to address at the hearing (Doc.
16
No. 108), Plaintiff now only wants to explain why Lutz was absent. Plaintiff “is informed and
17
believes that Mr. Lutz was prevented from boarding his aircraft to travel from Miami Beach,
18
Florida to San Francisco California for reasons that were completely unforeseeable to him at the
19
time and entirely beyond his control. Mr. Lutz has informed Plaintiff that he wishes to explain to
20
the Court the reasons for his absence, but the reasons are of a very sensitive nature and would
21
expose Mr. Lutz to undue scrutiny.” Id. Plaintiff’s vague allegations of “sensitivity,” the fact that
22
Plaintiff makes this representation on information and belief, and Plaintiff’s litigation strategy to
23
date, all suggest that Lutz’s absence and his attempt to excuse it after the fact amount to
24
gamesmanship. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel did not request a continuance of the evidentiary
25
hearing when Lutz failed to appear. Finally, Northern District Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the
26
procedure litigants must follow, and the standards they must meet, to file documents under seal;
27
Plaintiff’s application does not follow this Local Rule.
28
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s second ex parte application is denied. If Lutz wants to
1
2
explain his absence, he may file a declaration on the record or proceed according to Local Rule
3
79-5.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
9
Dated: September 12, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?