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)

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