Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Filing 194

ORDER ADVANCING HEARING AND GRANTING 192 MOTION TO APPEAR BY ZOOM. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/5/2025. Reset Hearing as to 171 and 177 : Motion Hearing set for 3/6/2025 02:00 PM. The hearing will be held by the Court's private Zoom Webinar. The Courtroom Deputy will email the Zoom information to Plaintiff, Filippatos, and Defense counsel.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ZOYA KOVALENKO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, et al.,

ORDER ADVANCING HEARING AND
GRANTING MOTION TO APPEAR BY
ZOOM
Re: Dkt. Nos. 171, 177, 192

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 22-cv-05990-HSG

12
13

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to enter termination of Filippatos PLLC for cause,

14

Dkt. No. 171, and Filippatos PLLC (“Filippatos”) and Hennig Kramer LLP’s motion to withdraw,

15

Dkt. No. 177. Both motions are currently set for hearing on March 20, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. On

16

March 3, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order seeking to continue

17

discovery deadlines “so the Court can rule on the pending cross-motions.” Dkt. No. 189 at 3.

18

Accordingly, the Court ADVANCES the hearing on the motion to terminate, Dkt. No.

19

171, and the motion to withdraw, Dkt. No. 177, to Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The

20

Court will address the parties’ request to continue discovery deadlines after ruling on the pending

21

motions.

22

In addition, the Court GRANTS Filippatos PLLC’s request to hold the hearing remotely,

23

Dkt. No. 192. The hearing will be held by the Court’s private Zoom Webinar. The Courtroom

24

Deputy will email the Zoom information to Plaintiff, Filippatos, and Defense counsel.

25

While the Court will grant the request to appear remotely at this hearing under the

26

circumstances, its Standing Order makes clear that civil motions are generally heard in person at

27

the United States Courthouse in Oakland, California. See Standing Order for Civil Cases Before

28

District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ¶ 4. Filippatos’s request for virtual appearance seems to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

suggest that appearing in person is somehow an unfair and unnecessary imposition on counsel

2

because they are based in New York. See Dkt. No. 192 at 2 (complaining that it would be a

3

hardship to travel to Oakland “merely to attend this hearing in person,” and contending that doing

4

so would cause “disruption” to “certain family and childcare obligations”), 3 (asserting that

5

“traveling cross country to attend this hearing in person would . . . pose a ‘financial hardship’”).

6

The Court could not disagree more: if counsel does not want the “hardship” of traveling to

7

Oakland for a substantive motions hearing, they should not have taken on representation in a

8

lawsuit pending here. In-person attendance at hearings is not a “mere” inconvenience: it is part of

9

the inherent duties of an attorney who makes the choice to represent a client in a court far from

10

home. The Court advises counsel that any future representations of this type, in this case or

11

others, will not be well-taken, and reminds counsel not to presume to tell the Court what is and is

12

not important in the handling of its matters. The Court stresses that there is no entitlement to

13

routine remote appearances simply because counsel would rather not be bothered to travel to the

14

venue where this lawsuit has been pending for years.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated:

3/5/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2