Davis et al v. Zimmerman et al

Filing 162

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Supplement Record for Summary Judgment Motion (ECF No. 157 ). Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/7/20. (jmo)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAIRO CERVANTES, et al., 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 19 20 Case No. 17-cv-1230-BAS-AHG Case No. 18-cv-1062-BAS-AHG ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION [ECF No. 157] BRYAN PEASE, 17 18 CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS: Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, et al., Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to supplement the record on 23 summary judgment with the bodyworn camera (BWC) footage of three officers. (ECF No. 24 157.) The City opposes. (ECF No. 160.) 25 “The ‘opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited.’” 26 Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting 27 In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). To warrant relief, 28 an ex parte application must demonstrate good cause to allow the moving party “to go to -117cv1230 / 18cv1062 1 the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” Mission 2 Power Eng’r Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To warrant 3 ex parte relief, the moving party must show that it will suffer irreparable harm if the motion 4 is not heard on an expedited schedule and that it either did not create the circumstances 5 warranting ex parte relief or that the circumstances occurred as a result of excusable 6 neglect. Id. at 492. 7 Plaintiffs have failed to make either showing in their Application. First, in a lengthy 8 declaration, Plaintiffs’ counsel recites a chronology of events beginning in May 2016, 9 during which Defendant City of San Diego (“City”) allegedly delayed production of almost 10 600 BWC videos until June 2019 and prevented him from downloading the videos himself. 11 (Decl. of Bryan Pease (“Pease Decl.”) ¶¶ 7–11, ECF No. 157-1.) However, Plaintiffs offer 12 no specific argument explaining the harm that will result from the omission of these videos, 13 including by reference to any specific merits of their Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. 14 See Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492 (“A showing of irreparable prejudice usually 15 requires reference to the merits of the underlying motion.”). Mr. Pease only states that the 16 videos “would show without question that Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiffs’ civil 17 rights[.]” (Pease Decl. ¶ 10.) This conclusory statement is not sufficient to satisfy 18 Plaintiffs’ burden for ex parte relief. 19 Second, this appears to be a rehashing of a discovery dispute that was raised before 20 the Court in August 2018. At that time, the parties jointly requested an extension of time 21 to file a discovery dispute regarding the release of BWC footage of the underlying 22 incidents. (ECF No. 48.) Noting noncompliance with chambers’ rules, Magistrate Judge 23 Stormes allowed Plaintiffs to supplement the joint motion to demonstrate the timeliness of 24 the request for the extension. (ECF No. 49.) After two weeks during which Plaintiffs 25 failed to file a supplemental response, Magistrate Judge Stormes denied the joint motion. 26 (ECF No. 50.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs had the opportunity to address this dispute 27 over a year before their deadline to file their Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and yet 28 -217cv1230 / 18cv1062 1 failed to do so. Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown that the circumstances allegedly warranting 2 this Application were not of Plaintiffs’ own making or the result of excusable neglect. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 157) is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: April 7, 2020 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -317cv1230 / 18cv1062

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?