Four Directions et al v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Filing 43

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 35 MOTION to Dismiss.Parties briefs filed by Monday, 2/2/15. Replies due by 2/6/2015 by 12:00 noon. Motion Hearing on FAP and Motion to Dismiss set for Wednesday, 2/11/2015 02:00 PM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/26/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

FOUR DIRECTIONS, ET AL.,

Case No. 14-cv-03022-YGR

Petitioners,
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON FIRST
AMENDED PETITION AND MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION

6
v.
7
8
9

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND
DISABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
Respondents.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Petitioners Four Directions, Indian People’s Action, Sara Plains Feather, and Clifford Bird

12

In Ground (“Petitioners”) filed their First Amended Pre-Complaint Petition to Preserve Evidence

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a)(1) on November 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 34,

14

“FAP”.) Respondents have objected to the FAP and moved to dismiss it. (Dkt. No. 35.)

15

Having reviewed and considered and the current set of filings, including the FAP,

16

additional issues require briefing. Petitioners now include litigants who suggest they are preparing

17

to challenge certain rulings of Judge Cebull based upon alleged bias. The Court notes that in its

18

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Petitioners have limited their petition to the preservation, not

19

production, of Judge Cebull's emails only and no other documents from the investigation. The

20

Court considers only that limited scope of the Petition.

21

The parties shall each address the following issues in written briefs not to exceed ten (10)

22

pages by Monday, February 2, 2015. A reply shall be allowed not to exceed five (5) pages by

23

Friday, February 6, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. noon:

24

(1) whether, assuming one of the petitioners here filed some motion or petition for relief

25

regarding a case that went to decision before Judge Cebull, there would be some mechanism for

26

discovery, in that proceeding, of his non-case related e-mails previously uncovered in the

27

investigation of the misconduct complaints against Judge Cebull;

28

(2) what avenue (if any) for relief, through the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council or otherwise,

1

is available to persons who believe that a decision made by Judge Cebull should be reviewed in

2

light of the decisions of the Committee; and

3

(3) for Petitioners: given that (i) Rule 27(a)(A) includes has a temporal requirement and (ii)

4

the emails at issue were made public last January 2014, identify the reasons any expected action

5

either has not been brought or cannot be brought now, bearing in mind that the documents

6

identified for preservation are already generally known to the Petitioners and cannot be used to

7

satisfy a petitioner’s obligations under Rule 11.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The Court ORDERS that the parties appear for oral argument on the FAP and Motion to
Dismiss on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 2:00p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2015
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2