Ventress v. Japan Airlines et al

Filing 154

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 153 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/28/10. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic no tifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications shall be served by first class mail on September 29, 2010. A copy of this order shall be served to Martin Ventress at the address of record on September 29, 2010. .

Ventress v. Japan Airlines et al

Doc. 154

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARTIN VENTRESS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JAPAN AIRLINES; JALWAYS CO., ) LTD.; and HAWAII AVIATION ) CONTRACT SERVICES, INC, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) Civil No. 07-00581 SOM/LEK ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Martin Ventress's Motion for Clarification. Ventress seeks clarification from the

court regarding: (1) the status of the stay that has been issued in this case; (2) his proposed "production" of the "`Agreement Between Japan Air Charter' (`JALways') and HACS"; and (3) his status given a letter sent to Ventress by counsel for Defendant Hawaii Aviation Contract Services ("HACS") accusing Ventress of being a vexatious litigant. these issues seriatim.1 On August 31, 2010, Magistrate Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi denied Ventress's motion to unseal records on the ground that no records have been sealed in this case.
1

Mot. at 1-3.

The court addresses

See Order

This matter is suitable for disposition without a hearing. See Local Rule LR7.2(d).

Dockets.Justia.com

Denying Martin Ventress' Mot. to Unseal U.S. Dist. Ct. Records, Filed Mar. 19, 2010 ("Order Denying Motion to Unseal"), ECF No. 151. Ventress requests clarification of language contained

in the Order Denying Motion to Unseal regarding the stay in place in this case. The court clarifies that the Order Denying Motion

to Unseal does not alter the rulings previously issued by Judge Samuel P. King regarding the stay in this case. See Order

Regarding Suggestion of Bankruptcy, May 13, 2010, ECF No. 128; Order Partially Lifting Stay as to Def. Jalways Co., Ltd., July 6, 2010 ("Order Partially Lifting Stay"), ECF No. 141. Judge

King lifted the stay as to proceedings against Defendant Jalways Co., Ltd., only. Order Partially Lifting Stay at 1. Thus, Id. at 1-2.

"[t]he stay remains as to Defendant Japan Airlines."

Ventress next argues that he should be allowed to "produce" the "`Agreement Between Japan Air Charter' (`JALways') and HACS" (the "Agreement"), which he represents was produced by a plaintiff in another case.2 Mot. at 2. Contrary to Ventress's

apparent belief, see id., the court has never disallowed his use of any document in this case. The court does, however, require See

Ventress to follow the protective orders in place.

Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Produced Docs. Based on Ventress's repeated references to prior briefing and orders regarding Ventress's use of confidential material in his briefs, the court interprets Ventress's motion as seeking to use the Agreement in his filings and in trial, rather seeking guidance as to document production in the context of discovery. 2
2

("Protective Order"), Nov. 26, 2007, ECF No. 3; see also Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Produced Docs., Sept. 17, 2004. If the document in question is covered by the

Protective Order, Ventress is bound to follow the provisions in the Protective Order regarding use of such material in his court papers. See 2007 Protective Order ¶¶ 1 ("Designated Material"), If the document is not

7 ("Designations in Court Papers").

covered by the Protective Order, then the Protective Order does not apply to Ventress's use of the material in this action. If he desires further guidance on the operation of the Protective Order, Ventress may review orders previously issued in this case on this topic, particularly: (1) the Order Denying Defendant Hawaii Aviation Contract Services, Inc.'s Motion for Relief and Sanctions Regarding Violation of Confidentiality Provisions and Unauthorized Disclosure Made by Plaintiff Martin Ventress, ECF No. 94; and (2) the Order Denying Plaintiff Martin Ventress' Motion to Unseal United States District Court Records, Filed March 19, 2010, ECF No. 151. Finally, Ventress has attached a letter from counsel for HACS, Carl Osaki, in which Osaki suggests that Ventress is a vexatious litigant under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 634J-1. Ventress requests the court's "opinion" on "HACS accusation of Plaintiff defined as a `vexatious litigant.'" Ventress is

attempting to litigate an issue that is not properly before this 3

court.

No Defendant has brought a motion seeking to have The court therefore has The court

Ventress declared a vexatious litigant.

no occasion to consider the question at this time.

declines Ventress's request that it parse language in a letter between parties or opine on opposing counsel's characterization of Ventress. Accordingly, the court partially GRANTS Ventress's motion for clarification, as set forth above. clarified above, the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 28, 2010. Except as

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge

Ventress v. Japan Airlines; Civil No. 07-00581 SOM/LEK; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

4