Pizza v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,

Filing 92

ORDER STRIKING EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS FROM PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/19/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 DANIEL PIZZA,

Case No. 13-cv-0688 MMC (NC)

12

ORDER STRIKING EX PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS FROM
PLAINTIFF

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
15
16

AUTHORITY, INC.
Defendant.

17
18

This Court today ruled on plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

19 While the motion was pending, the Court received six ex parte email communications from
20 plaintiff and the Court’s Deputy Clerk received additional telephone messages. Plaintiff’s
21 counsel was copied on most of these messages, but defendant’s counsel was not. An ex
22 parte communication is between one party in a case and the Court, without notice to the
23 other party. The gist of the messages was that plaintiff wanted to know when the Court
24 would rule on the pending motion. He also wanted to know why the Court was not
25 responding to his emails. This order explains why.
26

The Court’s local rules prohibit ex parte communications and provide that “an

27 attorney or party to an action must refrain from making telephone calls or writing letters or
28 sending copies of communications between counsel to the assigned Judge or the Judge’s
Case No. 13-cv-0688 MMC (NC)
ORDER STRIKING EX PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS

rks
wise
municating with a Judge or the Jud
w
e
dge’s staff r
regarding a
1 law cler or otherw comm
g
thout prior notice to op
pposing cou
unsel.” Civ L.R. 11-4
v.
4(c). Furthe
ermore,
2 pending matter, wit
tten
t
urt
e
tion
3 any writ request to the Cou for an order must be presented by filing a proper mot or
ion. See Civ L.R. 7-1(
v.
(a).
4 stipulati

5

On purpose for the proh
ne
hibition on ex parte co
ommunicati
ions is that all parties s
should

ed
ual
t
guments bei presente so that th may respond
ing
hey
6 have equ access to the evidence and arg
ject
e
nd
t
.
d
is
7 to or obj to the evidence an argument presented. A second purpose is that there i a
p
y
o
mails to the Court do no
ot
8 strong public policy in favor of access to Court records, and em
o
rt’s
ble
9 appear on the Cour accessib records.

10
0

Be
ecause the ex parte com
e
mmunicatio from pla
ons
aintiff viola the Loc Rules, t
ated
cal
the

id
ond
m,
onsider them and now strikes them A copy of the
m,
m.
11 Court di not respo to them did not co
1
w
d
l
e
the
12 emails will be filed under seal to preserve them for t record. Further ex parte
2
nications ar not welco
re
ome.
13 commun
3

14
4

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

15
5

Date: March 19, 2015

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 13-cv-068 MMC (N
88
NC)
R
G
TE
ORDER STRIKING EX PART
COMM
MUNICATIO
ONS

2