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)

Download PDF
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?