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
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?