Ocampo v. United States of America et al
Filing
253
ORDER striking #249 Ex Parte Motion to Remove Non-Essential Personnel from ECF Service List. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 5/26/2020. (djk)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
KAREN OCAMPO, as the personal
representative of SALOMON
RODRIGUEZ,
13
Case No.: 15-CV-180-JAH-WVG
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO REMOVE
NON-ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL
FROM THE COURT’S ECF
SERVICE LIST
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and
NATIONAL STEEL AND
SHIPBUILDING COMPANY,
16
17
18
Defendants.
19
20
On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Remove Non-Essential
21
Personnel from the Court’s ECF Service List. (Doc. No. 249.) In relevant part, the Ex Parte
22
Application moves the Court to remove eight attorneys and paralegals from the service list
23
as reflected on the docket due to their lack of continued involvement in this litigation. The
24
Court hereby STRIKES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application from the record for non-
25
compliance. This Court’s Civil Chambers Rule VI expressly provides “appropriate ex parte
26
applications may be made any time after first contacting Judge Gallo’s Research Attorney
27
assigned to the case.” At no time did this Court’s Chambers receive any advance notice
28
regarding Plaintiff’s intent to file the instant Ex Parte Application. Further, although Civil
1
15-CV-180-JAH-WVG
1
Chambers Rule VI required Plaintiff to contact this Court’s Chambers, Plaintiff also did
2
not contact the Chambers of District Judge Houston prior to making this filing. Thus,
3
Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite advance notice to the Court.
4
The Ex Parte Application is also improper for its violation of this Court’s Local
5
Rules and, again, Civil Chambers Rule VI. The accompanying Declaration of Preston
6
Easley is void of any statement “that indicates reasonable and appropriate notice to
7
opposing counsel, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 83.3(g).” Instead, the Declaration
8
exclusively asserts Plaintiff’s counsel verified there are “no tangible links” between the
9
attorneys and paralegals referenced in the Ex Parte Application and this litigation. These
10
representations do not make clear whether Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendants advance
11
notice of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application filing, consistent with Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) and
12
Chambers Civil Rule VI, or whether Plaintiff’s counsel simply inquired as to the status of
13
certain individual’s involvement in this case without more.
14
For Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the Local Rules and Civil Chambers Rules, the
15
Court STRIKES from the record Plaintiff’s May 7, 2020 Ex Parte Application (Doc. No.
16
249.)
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 26, 2020
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
15-CV-180-JAH-WVG
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?