Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 924

ORDER . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/28/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2016) Modified on 10/28/2016 to correct typo (ndrS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 919

9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in response to the Court’s order at

13

Dkt. No. 915. Significantly, counsel refuses to submit any firsthand evidence from the interpreter

14

regarding exactly what occurred during what counsel alleges was an “improper ex parte

15

communication” between defense counsel, the interpreter and Magistrate Judge Ryu’s law clerk.

16

Dkt. No. 905 at 4; Dkt. No. 919 at 12 (“I have not asked [interpreter] to give me a declaration, as

17

the Court directs me to do, because it is not my place to do so and I am not required to put

18

[interpreter] in the difficult situation to corroborate what I know she told me.”). Of course, both

19

what the interpreter told counsel and what actually happened during the communication at issue

20

are highly relevant, and counsel admits no firsthand knowledge as to the second point. Counsel

21

also says that she obtained information supporting her allegation that defense counsel and Judge

22

Ryu’s law clerk are “social acquaintances” or “well-acquainted,” but declines to say from whom

23

she received that information. Dkt. No. 919 at 7-8 (“I am not required to provide the Court the

24

name of the member of the [UC Hastings] Class of 2005 from whom I learned about [defense

25

counsel] and [Judge Ryu’s law clerk] and decline to do so because I have no right or obligation to

26

negatively affect this person in his relationships and career.”). Counsel now further alleges that

27

she “believe[s] that defense counsel’s familiarity with [Judge Ryu’s law clerk] is relevant to the

28

issues . . . addressed in Appeal 905 and to the manner in which defense counsel reached out to

1
2

[Judge Ryu’s law clerk].” Id. at 8-9.
Given counsel’s refusal to provide firsthand information regarding the basis for key

3

allegations, and the seriousness of those allegations, the Court concludes that Judge Ryu’s law

4

clerk should have the opportunity to respond directly if she wishes. Judge Ryu’s law clerk can

5

speak clearly and without qualification based on firsthand knowledge about what occurred. The

6

Court invites Judge Ryu’s law clerk to submit a declaration if she wishes responding to the

7

allegations made by plaintiff’s counsel in the filings at Dkt. Nos. 905, 905-1 and 919. If Judge

8

Ryu’s law clerk chooses to do so, such declaration should be filed by November 4, 2016. The

9

matter will be deemed submitted at that time unless otherwise ordered. No other filings from the

10

parties will be permitted in connection with this matter.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/28/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2