Yates v. Delano Retail Partners LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER 36 , [36-1] STRIKING OPPOSITION AND 38 , [38-3]REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS OF THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH AND MICHAEL J. CHILLEEN. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CRAIG YATES,

5
6
7

No. C 10-3073 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

9

DELANO RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC,
doing business as DELANO’S IGA
MARKET #1; and ARTHUR S. BECKER,
as Trustee of the ARTHUR S.
BECKER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

11

________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING
OPPOSITION AND
REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY AND
SUPPORTING
DECLARATIONS OF
THOMAS E.
FRANKOVICH AND
MICHAEL J.
CHILLEEN (Docket
Nos. 36, 36-1, 38,
and 38-3)

12

On February 9, 2012, Defendant Arthur S. Becker, Trustee of

13

the Arthur S. Becker Revocable Trust, filed a motion to stay the

14

entire action.

15

On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff Craig Yates, through counsel,

16

filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion and offered the

17

declaration of Thomas E. Frankovich in support thereof.

18

materials, Plaintiff disclosed certain items that happened or were

19

said during a court-sponsored mediation session on May 18, 2011.

20

On March 1, 2012, Defendant filed a reply in support of his

In these

21

motion to stay and offered the declaration of Michael J. Chilleen

22

in support thereof.

23

things, objected to Plaintiff’s use of the mediation information,

24

disputed the substance of Plaintiff’s disclosure and requested

25

that the Court order Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he

26

should not be sanctioned for disclosing the mediation information.

In these filings, Defendant, among other

27

Under the Court’s Local Rules for Alternative Dispute

28

Resolution (ADR Local Rules), discussions and disclosures made

1

during mediation are presumptively designated as confidential and

2

may not be “disclosed to the assigned judge” or “used for any

3

purpose, including impeachment, in any pending or future

4

proceeding,” absent “truly exigent circumstances.”

5

7-5(a); ADR Local Rule 7-5, Commentary.

6

obtained prior court approval to disclose otherwise confidential

7

information and has not provided any legitimate basis for the

8

disclosure of such information without prior approval.

9

ADR Local Rule

Plaintiff has not

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Opposition and the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Frankovich Declaration, as well as Defendant’s Reply and the

11

Chilleen Declaration (Docket Nos. 36, 36-1, 38, and 38-3).

12

three days of the date of this Order, the parties shall re-file

13

these documents omitting any reference to material deemed

14

confidential under the ADR Local Rules.

15

additional arguments to these documents.

16

Within

The parties may not add

Further, a motion for sanctions may not be presented for the

17

first time in a reply brief.

18

Defendant wishes to pursue sanctions, he shall do so in compliance

19

with ADR Local Rule 2-4, which sets forth the procedures for

20

resolving complaints regarding violations of the ADR Local Rules

21

and provides that such complaints shall not be filed with the

22

undersigned, but shall instead be presented in writing to the ADR

23

Magistrate Judge.

24
25
26

See Civil Local Rule 7-8.

If

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/6/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2