James v. Lee et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying 80 Request for Judicial Notice filed by Kyle Robert James. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 6/4/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KYLE ROBERT JAMES,

Case No.: 16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

BARBARA LEE, et al.,

15

[ECF No. 80]
Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 80.)

18

Plaintiff requests that the Court “take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint filed to County

19

Counsel Supervisor Thomas E. Montgomery . . . regarding Defendants[’] counsel Melissa

20

Holmes and Robert Ortiz’s intentional failure to respond to Plaintiffs [sic] informal and

21

formal requests for discovery and to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

22

Procedure.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff represents that he attached “a handwritten copy of the

23

complaint” to the instant Request for Judicial Notice. (Id.)

24

If a party requests that a court take judicial notice of a fact, and supplies the court

25

with the requisite information, and if the fact is appropriate for judicial notice, then the

26

court must take judicial notice of it. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (c). A fact of which a court

27

can take judicial notice must “not [be] subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is

28

generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and
1
16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB

1

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.

2

R. Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is subject to reasonable

3

dispute. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-90 (9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore,

4

“[b]ecause the effect of judicial notice is to deprive a party of an opportunity to use rebuttal

5

evidence, cross-examination, and argument to attack contrary evidence, caution must be

6

used in determining that a fact is beyond controversy under rule 201(b).” Rivera v. Philip

7

Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wright v. Brooke Group. Ltd.,

8

114 F. Supp. 2d 797, 815 (N.D. Iowa 2000)).

9

On the evidence before the Court, the fact that Plaintiff submitted a complaint to

10

County Counsel Supervisor is a fact subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid.

11

201(b). “‘[A] high degree of indisputability is the essential prerequisite’ to taking judicial

12

notice of adjudicative facts.” Rivera, 395 F.3d at 1151 (quoting advisory committee note

13

to Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) & (b)). Here, Plaintiff provides the Court with a handwritten copy

14

of a complaint that Plaintiff represents he sent to County Counsel Supervisor. (ECF No.

15

80.) This is not a source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R.

16

Evid. 201(b).1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 80) is hereby

17

DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2018

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Moreover, even if the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff submitted a complaint,
the Court could not take judicial notice of disputed facts within the complaint Plaintiff represents that he
sent to County Counsel Supervisor. Lee, 250 F.3d at 689-90.
2
16-cv-01592-AJB-JLB