Percelle v. State of California et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 9 Ex Parte Application by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2014)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN DALE PERCELLE, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 14-cv-03881-TEH ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION Defendant. 8 9 10 On September 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to take a deposition of United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Willie Johnson pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B). Mot. at 1 (Docket 12 No. 9). Plaintiff labeled the motion an “ex parte” motion and asserted that it was filed 13 under Civil Local Rule 7-10. Id. at 4. Having reviewed the parties’ papers in support and 14 opposition of the motion, and considering statements made during the Case Management 15 Conference held September 15, 2014, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without 16 prejudice. 17 An ex parte motion is a motion for which notice is not provided to opposing parties. 18 Civ. L.R. 7-10. A party filing such a motion must include a citation to the source of 19 authority permitting an ex parte motion to be used for the relief sought. Id. Plaintiff here 20 both provided notice of this motion to Defendant and failed to identify any source of 21 authority for using an ex parte motion for the relief sought. See Mot. Plaintiff’s counsel 22 stated at the Case Management Conference that he filed the motion in this manner because 23 an anonymous clerk at the courthouse told him that an ex parte motion was closest to what 24 he was trying to accomplish. It is not sufficient to rely on such advice. 25 Plaintiff has been warned in the related case that violations of the Local Rules will 26 not be tolerated, and may result in summary denial of related motions. Percelle v. 27 Pearson, No. 14-cv-3881-TEH, 2014 WL 4416075 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014). 28 1 Plaintiff is hereby instructed that he must adhere to the requirements of the Local Rules to 2 the letter. 3 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: 09/17/2014 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 9 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?