Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp

Filing 231

ORDER: The video status conference currently set before this Court on 10/21/2020 at 8:00 AM is VACATED. Pursuant to the District Court's order 218 , this Court will set a settlement conference utilizing Zoom video conferencing technology. The Court is currently available to conduct the settlement conference on any of the following dates: November 25, November 30, December 14, December 18, or December 23, 2020 all to commence at 8:00 a.m. The parties shall have until Monday, October 2 6, 2020 to advise the deputy court clerk of the date that works best with their calendars for this settlement conference. See the attached order for specifications. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 10/19/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LGM)

Case 3:18-cv-00296-MMD-CLB Document 231 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
TESLA, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARTIN TRIPP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________ )

3:18-CV-0296-MMD-CLB
ORDER

The video status conference currently set before this Court on October 21, 2020 at
8:00 a.m. is VACATED.
Pursuant to the District Court’s order (ECF No. 218), this Court will set a settlement
conference utilizing Zoom video conferencing technology. The Court is currently available
to conduct a settlement conference in this action on any of the following dates: November
25, November 30, December 14, December 18, or December 23, 2020 all to commence at
8:00 a.m. The parties shall have until Monday, October 26, 2020 to advise the deputy
court clerk of the date that works best with their calendars for this settlement conference.
The Court finds that the Court will defer a ruling on the plaintiff’s emergency motion
for order to show cause and hearing (ECF No. 220) until after the settlement conference.
In the meantime, the Court advises and reminds Mr. Tripp of the following. First,
Mr. Tripp is reminded that the Court ordered that he refrain from disclosing information
related to the documents designated under the protective order, including providing verbal
descriptions of the contents of the “attorney’s eyes only” documents. (See ECF Nos. 44,
205, 211.) Therefore, pursuant to the Court’s prior orders, the Court again emphasizes that
making public disclosures of these documents or the contents of those documents, would
be in direction violation of the Court’s previous orders and he is precluded from doing so.
Although the parties agreed to a liquidated damage provision for any future violations of

Case 3:18-cv-00296-MMD-CLB Document 231 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 3

the Court’s prior orders, which is detailed in the Court’s August 14, 2020 minute order, this
agreement in no way altered or changed the Court’s prior orders prohibiting such conduct.
(ECF No. 211). Mr. Tripp also specifically agreed on August 14, 2020 that he would not
“make any reference or [describe; to anyone in person, over the phone, in an email, or on
any website … ‘the attorneys’ eyes only’ documents in violation of the protective order.”
(Id.) Therefore, Mr. Tripp is advised and reminded that any violation of the Court’s prior
orders prohibiting this conduct will result in the imposition of sanctions over and above
what may be required pursuant to the liquidated damage provision of the Court’s August
14, 2020 minute order.
Second, Mr. Tripp is also advised that although he is representing himself pro
se, he is still obligated to follow all court rules. As a pro se litigant, this requires that Mr.
Tripp is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to lawyers. See, e.g., King
v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v.
Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) (Pro se litigants must follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haley,
126 P.3d 1262, 1263 (Wash. 2006) (“[U]nder RPC 4.2(a), a lawyer acting pro se is
prohibited from contacting a party represented by counsel in the matter ….”); Bisciglia v.
Lee, 370 F. Supp. 2d 874, 879 (D. Minn. 2005) (“[A]lthough they are pro se litigants,
Plaintiffs must abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit a
lawyer from communicating with a party known to be represented by another lawyer ....”);
Agne v. Rain City Pizza, L.L.C., No. C10-1139-JCC, 2011 WL 13127652, at *1 (W.D.
Wash. May 24, 2011) (pro se litigant must follow procedural rules and to conduct
themselves with proper decorum both inside and outside courtroom). Pursuant to the
Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer, or in this case, a self-represented party, is

Case 3:18-cv-00296-MMD-CLB Document 231 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 3

prohibited from directly contacting an opposing party if that party is represented by
counsel. See ABA Model Rule 4.2, adopted as Nevada Supreme Court Rule 182; see also
Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (while representing a client, “a lawyer shall not
communicate about the subject matter of the representation with a person the lawyer
knows to be represented by another lawyer.”). When a company or corporation is the
represented party, Nevada has determined that an employee of a company that is
represented by counsel in a matter is deemed a “party” within the meaning of Rule 4.2 if
that employee “has managing authority sufficient to give them the right to speak for, and
bind, the corporation.” Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Associations, Ltd., 338 F.3d 981, 987 (9th
Cir. 2003). This rule is known as the “managing speaking agent” rule. Therefore, pursuant
to this rule, Mr. Tripp is precluded from any further direct contact with Mr. Musk or any
other employee of Tesla while this case is pending. Rather, if Mr. Tripp has any issues that
require a discussion with the opposing party, he is required by the rules to contact counsel
of Tesla only. The any further failures to follow this rule as well as any other court rule will
result in the imposition of sanctions against Mr. Tripp.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2020

CARLA BALDWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE