White v. Time Warner Cable et al
Filing
89
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's (1) Motion To Disqualify Local Counsel For Programming Media Defendants And (2) Motion of Reconsideration To Increase The Award For Cost and Fees of Service And To File Electronically re 59 , 75 . Signed by Judge BARR Y M. KURREN on 2/27/13. (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BENJAMIN ORR WHITE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TIME WARNER CABLE, ET AL., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
______________________________ )
Civ. No. 12-00406 JMS-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
(1) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
LOCAL COUNSEL FOR
PROGRAMMING MEDIA
DEFENDANTS AND (2) MOTION
OF RECONSIDERATION TO
INCREASE THE AWARD FOR
COST AND FEES OF SERVICE
AND TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S (1) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY LOCAL
COUNSEL FOR PROGRAMMING MEDIA DEFENDANTS AND (2) MOTION
OF RECONSIDERATION TO INCREASE THE AWARD FOR COST AND
FEES OF SERVICE AND TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Disqualify Local
Counsel for Programming Media Defendants (Doc. 59) and (2) Motion of
Reconsideration To Increase the Award for Cost and Fees of Service and To File
Electronically (Doc. 75). The Court DENIES these Motions.1
1
The Court elects to decide this Motion without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d).
I.
Motion to Disqualify Local Counsel
Plaintiff seeks to disqualify Cades Shutte LLP from representing
Defendants in this case based on “a possible conflict of interest between the
Plaintiff’s familial relations and [Cades Shutte].” (Doc. 59 at 3.)
Motions to disqualify counsel are “subjected to particularly strict
judicial scrutiny.” Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int’l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d
1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). Disqualification is a “drastic
measure which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely
necessary.” Schiessle v. Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 1983).
The party seeking disqualification “carries a heavy burden and must
satisfy a high standard of proof because of the potential for abuse.” In re Marvel,
251 B.R. 869, 871 (N.D. Cal. 2000). A motion for disqualification “should not be
decided on the basis of general and conclusory allegations.” Chuck v. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., 606 P.2d 1320, 1325 (Haw. 1980). A court’s factual findings
for disqualification must be “supported by substantial evidence.” Visa U.S.A. v.
First Data Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
The Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct govern Plaintiff’s conflict
of interest arguments, but they do not support disqualification because no conflict
of interest exists. See HRPC Rules 1.7 & 1.9. Cades Shutte has not represented
2
Plaintiff in any capacity before and has not represented Plaintiff’s parents in an
individual capacity, other than representing Plaintiff’s father in a litigation
involving unrelated employment matters over fifteen years ago. Cades Shutte’s
representation of the “Arcadia family of companies” and Sacred Hearts Academy
has nothing to do with this case, and creates no conflict of interest. Because
Plaintiff fails to meet his “heavy burden and . . . high standard of proof” to show
that disqualification is proper, Plaintiff’s request to disqualify Cades Shutte is
DENIED. See In re Marvel, 251 B.R. at 871.
II.
Motion for Reconsideration
A.
Fees and Costs of Service
Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Fees and Costs to Serve
Complaint, in which he sought to recover amounts he incurred in serving
Defendants Hearst Television Inc. and KITV-TV. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff initially
requested an “estimated” $185 in fees and costs to serve these Defendants. (Id.
¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff later filed a supplemental memorandum, specifying the actual
amounts he incurred for serving these Defendants. (Doc. 54 at ¶¶ 8-10.) In that
memorandum, Plaintiff states: “The fees and cost to serve Hearst Television Inc.
. . . was $440. . . . The fees and cost to serve KITV-TV in Honolulu, Hawaii was
$156.10.” (Id.) After holding a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs,
3
the Court granted Plaintiff $185, the initial amount requested, in fees in costs.
(Doc. 62.)
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that award amount, asking the
Court to award him an additional $59.59 for serving Defendant Hearst Television
Inc. According to documents filed by Plaintiff, he paid both NY Server LLC and
the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendant Hearst Television Inc. (Docs. 54,
65.) Additionally, he paid NY Server LLC for “expedited attempts” at service.
(Doc. 54.) In support of Plaintiff’s initial request for fees and costs, he represented
that “[t]he fees and cost to serve Hearst Television Inc. and its’ registered agent in
New York, New York was $440.00.” (Doc. 47 at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s Exhibits
clarified that $290 was paid to NY Server LLC and $150 was paid to the Marshals
Service, for a total cost of $440. The Court decided to award Plaintiff a fraction of
those costs. Furthermore, the Court notes that it denied Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis in this case because he did not financially qualify for
such status. Had he qualified, the Court would have served Defendants at no cost
to Plaintiff. However, because Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis and
because the Court already awarded Plaintiff costs for serving Defendant Hearst
Television, Inc., the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an increase of that
award.
4
B.
Electronic Filing
Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of this Court’s denial of his
request to file electronically. In its Order Denying Application for Permission to
File Electronically, the Court reasoned:
The Court denies this application because electronic
filing is limited to attorneys that have undergone
specialized training in the electronic filing system.
Because Plaintiff is not an attorney that has undergone
such specialized training, his motion is DENIED.
(Doc. 14 at 1.)
Plaintiff now argues that he is “willing and ready to enroll in the
special training required of attorneys” and that allowing him to electronically file
pleadings would prevent an “unfair advantage in the filing of documents for the
court’s attention and consideration.” (Doc. 75 at ¶ 4.) However, the Court
reiterates that “electronic filing is limited to attorneys” and, therefore, Plaintiff’s
request is DENIED because he is not an attorney.
Further, regarding the Stipulation of Electronic Service Between
Plaintiff and Cable Operator Defendants, the Court notes that Plaintiff and certain
Defendants have agreed that “the primary method of serving the parties
respectively will be electronically.” (Doc. 85 at ¶ 2.) Although the Court’s
CM/ECF electronic system generates e-mail notices (Notice of Electronic Filing)
5
when pleadings are filed in a case, the Court clarifies that the parties who signed
this Stipulation may not rely on the e-mails generated through the CM/ECF system
to constitute service of documents. Rather, the parties must e-mail each other
documents for service to be effected.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's (1) Motion to
Disqualify Local Counsel for Programming Media Defendants (Doc. 59) and (2)
Motion of Reconsideration To Increase the Award for Cost and Fees of Service
and To File Electronically (Doc. 75).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 27, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/ Barry M. Kurren
Barry M. Kurren
United States Magistrate Judge
White v. Time Warner Cable, et al., Civ. No. 12-00406 JMS-BMK; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S (1) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY LOCAL COUNSEL FOR PROGRAMMING
MEDIA DEFENDANTS AND (2) MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION TO INCREASE THE
AWARD FOR COST AND FEES OF SERVICE AND TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
6
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?