Brandle et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING 53 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

JAMES BRANDLE, REBECCA GREGG, and
DIANA GUTHRIE
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

No. C 12-05970 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Defendant Covidien Inc. has filed an administrative motion seeking to purge the record

18

of the denial of Attorney Bryan Pratt’s first motion for pro hac vice (Dkt. No. 47). That order

19

denied Attorney Pratt’s original pro hac vice application because he failed to specify the bar to

20

which he was a member in good standing — he only identified “Missouri” — in violation of

21

Local Rule 11-3. Attorney Pratt’s subsequent and correctly filed pro hac vice application was

22

granted. Now, Attorney Pratt seeks to excise the order denying his original application from the

23

record because he will have to identify any pro hac vice applications that have been denied on

24

future applications. Attorney Pratt should have followed the rules the first time around. Motion

25

DENIED.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE