United States of America v. Anderson

Filing 22

NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 22, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 14-cv-01932-JST

Petitioner,
8
v.

NOTICE OF EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION

9
10

SIGURD ANDERSON,
Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
The Court hereby gives notice that it received ex parte communication from Petitioner,

14

namely two copies of two documents: “United States’ Motion to Maintain Supplemental

15

Declaration of Revenue Agent Sarah Ho in Support of Verified Petition to Enforce Internal

16

Revenue Service Summons,” and “Supplemental Declaration of Revenue Agent Sarah Ho in

17

Support of Vertified Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons Under Seal.” The

18

submissions were not accompanied by a certificate indicating that they had been served on

19

Respondent, and the submissions were not filed on the docket.

20

The Court is prohibited from receiving ex parte communications. An ex parte

21

communication occurs when one party communicates with the court, orally in writing, either

22

without notice to or without the presence of the other party or parties. Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code

23

of Conduct for United States Judges provides that, except in circumstances not present here, “a

24

judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other

25

communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of

26

the parties or their lawyers.”

27
28

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 11-4(c) provides:
Except as otherwise provided by law, these Local Rules or otherwise

ordered by the Court, an attorney or party to an action must refrain
from making telephone calls or writing letters or sending copies of
communications between counsel to the assigned Judge or the
Judge’s law clerks or otherwise communicating with a Judge or the
Judge’s staff regarding a pending matter, without prior notice to
opposing counsel.

1
2
3
4

If there is an applicable exception to this rule, Petitioner has not identified it. The Court

5

has reviewed only the motion itself, which cites no authority for the proposition that the Court

6

may consider ex parte information. Beyond reviewing the motion, no Court personnel have

7

reviewed the material except to confirm the contents of the envelopes, and no Court personnel

8

have read the material in the declaration. The Court’s normal practice would be to post the

9

entirety of the documents on the docket, but since the labels on the envelope indicate the
information is sensitive, the Court is instead returning the documents to Petitioner. Petitioner is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

directed to make arrangements with the courtroom deputy to retrieve the documents.

12

The procedures for moving to file documents under seal are described in Civil Local Rule

13

79-5 and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/underseal. If Petitioner believes it is entitled to

14

submit information for the Court’s consideration in this action without disclosing that information

15

to Defendant, it shall file an appropriate motion on the docket setting forth authority for its

16

request.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2014

19
20
21

____________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2