UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
July 21, 2011
CITY OF PALO ALTO, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY;
LYNNE JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL;
DENNIS BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER KELLY BURGER, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER MANUEL TEMORES, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER APRIL WAGNER, AN INDIVIDUAL; AGENT DAN RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS, INDIVIDUAL,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND RULES COMMITTED BY CHIEF ATTORNEY STEVEN SHERMAN
Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi has filed a Motion Requesting Appropriate Action Regarding Violations of the Law and Rules Committed by Attorney Steven Sherman. Plaintiff alleges that by 22 his actions in this proceeding, Steven Sherman, counsel for Defendants, has violated various California state bar rules, as well as civil and criminal laws. The Court construed Plaintiff's 24 request as a motion for sanctions and held oral argument on June 30, 2011. Although Mr. Sherman 25 has made errors in the course of discovery and motion practice, the Court is not persuaded, based 26 on the evidence and arguments submitted, that Mr. Sherman engaged in misconduct. Accordingly, 27 the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
and seven current and former employees of the Palo Alto Police Department, alleging civil rights 4 violations and state common law claims. Plaintiff's claims arise out of an incident that occurred on March 15, 2008, in which officers of the Palo Alto Police Department used Taser guns to subdue 6 and arrest Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi. The incident was recorded by cameras mounted on the Taser 7 guns used by Defendants Manuel Temores and Kelly Burger, as well as the Mobile Audio Video
On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi filed a Complaint against the City of Palo Alto System (MAV) devices located on Temores's and Burger's patrol cars. These recordings have 9 been the subject of several motions to compel. Plaintiff now alleges that Steven Sherman, counsel 10 for Defendants, has violated various California state bar rules, as well as civil and criminal laws, by falsifying evidence and making misrepresentations during the course of discovery and motion practice in this case. Mr. Sherman denies Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct.
Plaintiff's motion and supplemental motion contain 13 separate allegations against Mr. Sherman. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Sherman has violated California Business & Professions Code
§ 6068(d) (attorney's duty never to mislead a judge by false statements), § 6068(f) (advancing facts 17 prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party), § 6106 (attorney dishonesty or moral turpitude), (prohibiting attorneys from seeking to mislead the judge). Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Procedure 37(b). Civil Local Rule 11-6(a) provides that "[i]n the event that a Judge has cause to 22 believe that an attorney has engaged in unprofessional conduct, the Judge may" refer the matter to 23 the disciplinary authority of the state where the attorney is licensed to practice, initiate civil or 24 criminal contempt proceedings, or impose other appropriate sanctions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) provides for the imposition of sanctions when a party "fails to obey an order to 26 provide or permit discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The Court will evaluate each of Plaintiff's allegations in turn.
§ 6128(a) (deceit or collusion by an attorney), and California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 Court impose disciplinary sanctions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-6(a) or Federal Rule of Civil number on Taser camera V07-065373. In support of this allegation, Plaintiff submits two 4 photographs, allegedly taken on October 20, 2010, and December 17, 2010, of a sticker on the Action ("Ciampi Decl.") Ex. 603, ECF No. 143. In addition to what appears to a warning label, the 7 sticker contains a serial number and bar code. See id. In the December 17, 2010 photo, part of the 8 serial number and bar code appears to be rubbed off. See id. Plaintiff also submits a short video 9 documenting a portion of the December 17, 2010 inspection of the Taser guns and Taser cameras 10 at the Palo Alto police station. Id. Ex. 600. On the video, Mr. Sherman appears to state, "We're
In his first allegation, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sherman has tampered with the serial V07-065373 Taser camera. See Decl. of Joseph Ciampi ISO Pl.'s Notice Requesting Appropriate going to have to put this [the Taser camera] into an envelope because we're messing up the 12 numbers. Some of it could be my fault from sticking this sticker on the wrong side all day long 13 and pulling it off, but we may be pulling off the number, the ink on it." Id. Ex. 600 at 2:42-56.
repeatedly pulled the slip off and stuck it back on during the inspection of the camera on December
17, 2010. On that day, Mr. Sherman speculated that the removal of the slip, or possibly the 17 repeated handling of the camera, may have rubbed some of the ink off the sticker. At the motion 18 hearing, Lieutenant Sandra Brown, of the Palo Alto Police Department, also stated that the V07-19
065373 Taser, which Defendants believe was not involved in the March 15, 2008 incident,*fn1 had 20 been in use prior to the December 17, 2010 inspection, and that the serial number may have rubbed 21 off in the course of ordinary police work.
have lightened or rubbed off somewhat. However, he states that he did not intentionally tamper 24
It seems that a packing slip had been taped to the Taser camera, and Mr. Sherman had Mr. Sherman does not deny that the serial number on Taser camera V07-065373 appears to with the serial number. The Court agrees that, based on Mr. Sherman's December 17, 2010 2 statement, it appears that once Mr. Sherman noticed that the serial number was rubbing off, he took 3 measures to mitigate the problem. This suggests that rather than tampering with the serial number, 4
Mr. Sherman actually attempted to ensure its integrity. Moreover, both Mr. Sherman and Plaintiff 5 agree that the serial numbers are programmed into the Taser cameras, such that even if the serial 6 number is rubbed off the sticker, it is still possible to identify the Taser cameras with accuracy. For 7 these reasons, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff's claim that Mr. Sherman sought to mislead the 8
However, the Court advises Mr. Sherman and Defendants that the V07-065373 Taser camera must 10 remain in evidence and be treated with care for the remainder of this case. If the Court learns that Court or tamper with evidence by rubbing off the serial number from Taser camera V07-065373.
the V07-065373 Taser camera has been reissued for use by the police or has not been properly secured in evidence, the Court will consider appropriate sanctions.
MAV recording with a date of last modification of March 15, 2008, the date of the Taser incident.
In his second allegation, Plaintiff states that he requested a copy of Defendant Temores' Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sherman responded to this request by providing a recording with a date 17 of last modification of September 3, 2010, but represented in the discovery response that the 18 recording provided had a date of last modification of March 15, 2008. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Sherman intentionally attempted to deceive Plaintiff regarding the date of last modification, that 20 this deception continued through the discovery process, and that it resulted in a motion to compel.
It seems that when Mr. Sherman originally provided copies of the recording to Plaintiff, he 22 produced them in a file format which records a new "date of last modification" each time a copy is 23 made. However, in order to obtain a copy with the original March 15, 2008 date of last 24 modification, Plaintiff must receive a bit-for-bit replication of the original file, in its original file 25 format. See Order by Judge Grewal Granting Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 115. It appears that Mr. Sherman did not initially produce the MAV recording in its original format because he believed 27 that Mr. Ciampi would not be able to view the recording in that format. However, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Grewal's April 21, 2011 order, Defendants have now produced the MAV recording to Plaintiff in its original format, using a Windows file copying system to create a bit-2 for-bit replication of the original file. he represented that the MAV recording produced had a date of last modification of March 15, It does appear that when Mr. Sherman initially responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests, 2008, and that this representation was incorrect. At the hearing, Mr. Sherman stated that this error 6 occurred because he misunderstood what Plaintiff meant by his request for a recording with a last 7 modification date of March 15, 2008. It also appears that Mr. Sherman and Defendants may not 8 have entirely understood the recording technology at that time. The Court is not convinced that the 9 erroneous representation in the original discovery response was made by Mr. Sherman in an 10 intentional effort to deceive Plaintiff or the Court. The parties have litigated the issue through 11 motions to compel, and it appears that Plaintiff now has the MAV recordings that he seeks Defendants now have a better understanding of both the technology at issue and the information Plaintiff seeks. Thus, there is little justification for future errors of this nature, and the Court will 15 not look favorably on such errors, should they recur.
stating that the watermark on the MAV recordings was proprietary in nature, and therefore
Defendants could not produce to Plaintiff MAV recordings containing the watermark. In his 20 response, Mr. Sherman explains that he did not intend to suggest that the watermark itself was 21 proprietary, but rather that the watermark can only be read or verified using proprietary software.
Plaintiff in his brief. Mr. Sherman's statement reads:
Accordingly, this claim does not provide grounds for sanctions. However, Mr. Sherman and
Plaintiff's third allegation similarly claims that Mr. Sherman made misrepresentations in
This does appear to be the nature of Mr. Sherman's statement, only part of which was cited by
At this time, plaintiff's request to receive actual 'original MAV recordings containing the digital watermark' infringes on Kustom Signal's proprietary software and MAV system created for police use. Any reading of the data that is encrypted so that the watermark can be read, has been created by software engineers for proprietary licensing; including the watermark software to read the watermark encryption.
Def.'s Br. re: Dispute over Obtaining Original MAV Recordings Containing Digital Watermark at 2
2, ECF No. 65 (emphasis added). While Plaintiff claims that he has been able to watch the MAV 3 recordings containing the watermark, he does not contend that he has been able to read or verify 4 the watermark without access to proprietary software. Accordingly, it does not appear that Mr. 5
Sherman misrepresented the proprietary nature of the software used to read the watermark and 6 verify the authenticity of the watermarked recordings. Because Plaintiff does not have access to 7 the proprietary software required to verify or read the watermarks in the MAV recordings produced 8 to him, the Court has ordered Defendants to allow Plaintiff to view and verify the watermarks 9 using the proprietary software at the Palo Alto Police Department. See Interim Order Regarding by submitting Taser gun activation data that is inconsistent with the data later obtained by Plaintiff 14 through a direct download from the Taser gun data ports. On September 3, 2010, Defendants 15 produced to Plaintiff "Weapon Summaries" containing the firing data for the Tasers used by Defendants Temores and Burger. This data was downloaded on August 31, 2010. Subsequently, 17 on December 17, 2010, Plaintiff downloaded the Taser activation data directly from Temores's and Plaintiff is correct that there are some differences between the two sets of data. The August 31, 2010 data produced by Defendants appears to have been produced in a somewhat different format 21 and contains firing data from June 27, 2007 to June or August 2008, depending on the Taser gun. 22
See Clarification Regarding Discovery Requests, Exs. 175, 177-79, ECF No. 109-1. In contrast, 23 the December 17, 2010 data-port downloads contain firing data only from 2008, and appear to have 24 omitted a few firings from the first few days of January 2008. See id. Exs. 175, 177. However, for 25 the firing dates that overlap, the data contained in each set of data is the same. Most importantly, 26 the firing data associated with the March 15, 2008 incident is identical in both sets of Taser gun 27 activation data. Thus, while it appears that the "Weapon Summaries" are produced in a slightly 28 different format and contain a different range of dates than the direct data-port downloads, there are
Pl.'s Mot. to Take Appropriate Action at 2, ECF No. 166.
In his fourth allegation, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sherman attempted to mislead the Court Burger's Taser guns. The Court has compared the two sets of Taser activation data and finds that no material differences between the two sets of data. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff's claim that Mr. Sherman intentionally attempted to mislead the Court by submitting the
"Weapon Summaries" downloaded on August 31, 2010 in support of Defendants' motion for 4 summary judgment.
Plaintiff's fifth allegation addressed immunity arguments made by Mr. Sherman in Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Due to the Court's ruling on the motion for summary 8 judgment, Plaintiff has withdrawn this allegation. 9
In his sixth allegation, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Sherman made a false and defamatory statement about Plaintiff by stating in Defendants' reply summary judgment brief the following:
"Nor does Plaintiff refute the existence of pock marks on his person, and in fact admits their 13 existence." Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Summary Judgment at 4, ECF No. 141. While 14
Plaintiff has admitted that he has a skin condition, Plaintiff has not admitted that his skin condition 15 results in "pock marks" that resemble the scarring or pitting associated with use of heroine or other 16 intravenous drugs. The Court does not think that Mr. Sherman intended to suggest that Plaintiff 17 had admitted to drug use or to the existence of marks on his skin that might be suggestive of drug 18 use. Rather, Mr. Sherman acknowledges that Plaintiff does not use intravenous drugs and was 19 attempting to argue that the police officers made a reasonable mistake in believing that he did. 20
Thus, through this statement, Mr. Sherman simply intended to point out that Plaintiff admitted to 21 some type of sores or scars on Plaintiff's arms. The Court was not misled by Mr. Sherman's use of 22 the term "pock marks," which can carry many different meanings, many of them not associated 23 with drug use at all. At the hearing, Mr. Sherman apologized for any offense that he may have 24 caused by characterizing Plaintiff's skin condition as "pock marks." Accordingly, while the Court 25 cautions Mr. Sherman to use care in characterizing any of Plaintiff's statements or admissions, the 26
Court does not find Mr. Sherman's statement to be misleading or defamatory. In the future, 27 however, Mr. Sherman must not use the term "pock marks" to refer to Plaintiff's skin condition.
statement about Plaintiff by implying that Plaintiff violated California Penal Code § 834(a) during 4 the March 15, 2008 incident. In the reply brief, Mr. Sherman states:
In his seventh allegation, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sherman made a false and defamatory Plaintiff concludes his Fourth Amendment analysis with a perfunctory argument that, because his detention was illegal, any force employed to effect it was by definition excessive. (See Pl.'s Mem. at 12.)
Not so! See Cal. Penal Code § 834(a) (West 2008) "If a person has knowledge . . . that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force . . . to resist such arrest."
Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Summary Judgment at 4, ECF No. 141. As above, Mr. 10
Mr. Sherman's reply brief does not assert that Plaintiff violated California Penal Code § 834(a).
Instead, Mr. Sherman simply uses § 834(a) to refute Plaintiff's claim that if there were no legal 13 basis for his arrest, any use of force to achieve that arrest would be unlawful. It is the nature of 14 litigation that each party will make legal arguments with which the other party disagrees, but the 15 parties are entitled to make such arguments. Thus, the Court cannot find anything false or 16 defamatory about Mr. Sherman's statement.
incomplete recording of the 911 call and radio communications between Defendants and the Palo Sherman on behalf of Defendants, and has found them to be identical. Both recordings are 13 22 minutes and 25 seconds long. See Decl. of Steven A. Sherman ISO Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. 18; Decl. of Joseph Ciampi ISO Opposition to Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. 551. Both 24 commence with a 911 call made by Ken Alsman that ends at about the 3:06-minute mark. Id. 25
Accordingly, Mr. Sherman did not attempt to mislead the Court regarding the 911 call. with their summary judgment motion contained an incomplete recording of the 911 call. In the Sherman is merely attempting to make a legal argument in response to Plaintiff's legal argument.
In his eighth allegation, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Sherman provided to the Court an Alto Dispatch. The Court has carefully reviewed the recordings submitted by Plaintiff and by Mr.
Both recordings run from approximately 9:25 a.m. to 11:01 a.m. on March 15, 2008. Id.
It appears, however, that the copy of Exhibit 18 that Plaintiff received from Defendants future, if Plaintiff notices that one of Defendants' exhibits appears to be incomplete, he should 2 notify Defendants immediately in order to obtain a complete and accurate exhibit and so that 3
Defendants can ensure that the exhibits submitted to the Court are complete. The Court 4 understands that Plaintiff already has a complete recording of the 911 call and radio 5 communications in his possession. However, in order to ensure that Plaintiff has a complete copy 6 of the summary judgment exhibits for his records, Mr. Sherman is ordered to produce to Plaintiff a complete and accurate copy of Exhibit 18 to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by July 29, 2011.
Plaintiff also contends that Mr. Sherman submitted a falsified Computer Automated Dispatch ("CAD") report in support of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff submits no 11 evidence that the CAD report was falsified, other than the fact that the CAD report states that Mr. Alsman reported that Plaintiff makes his wife and young daughter uncomfortable by the way he 13 watches them. See Decl. of Steven A. Sherman ISO Mot. for Summary Judgment, Ex. 3. The 14
Court has already acknowledged that Mr. Alsman did not state that Plaintiff watched his wife or 15 daughter in a way that made them uncomfortable, and the Court did not rely on this misinformation 16 in its summary judgment order. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defs.' Mot. for 17
Summary Judgment at 12, ECF No. 155. It seems, however, that this erroneous information was 18 somehow entered into the CAD report. While this is unfortunate, it simply does not suggest or 19 prove that Mr. Sherman falsified the CAD report.
statement by stating in a Joint Case Management Statement: "Plaintiff wants there to be a 23 conspiracy and he therefore interprets all information in a manner to support such. He is 24 misinformed." Joint Case Management Statement at 4, Apr. 14, 2011, ECF No. 142. Plaintiff then 25 suggests that Mr. Sherman is involved in a conspiracy with Defendants to suppress evidence and 26 obstruct justice. The Court again asks Mr. Sherman to use caution and respect when speaking of 27
Plaintiff or characterizing his positions. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Mr. Sherman that his 28 statement was neither defamatory nor misleading to the Court. Plaintiff has alleged various
In his ninth allegation, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Sherman made a speculative and false conspiracies with regard to the March 15, 2008 incident, Plaintiff's criminal prosecution, and the 2 conduct of the civil case, and Mr. Sherman is entitled to argue that no such conspiracy exists. 3
Moreover, as is clear from the Court's discussion above, Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Sherman 4 is involved in any conspiracy to falsify evidence or deceive the Court. in Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In his 8 motion, Plaintiff stated that he had first become aware of the verdict in Harper v. City of Los 9
Mot. for Leave to File a Mot. for Reconsideration at 3, ECF No. 146. In one sentence of his
In his tenth allegation, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Sherman attempted to mislead the Court Angeles a week earlier and then became aware of the Ninth Circuit's ruling "a few days ago." Pl.'s opposition brief, Mr. Sherman failed to differentiate between Plaintiff's discovery of the verdict 12 and his discovery of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File a Mot. 13 for Reconsideration at 2, ECF No. 151. However, two sentences later Mr. Sherman correctly stated 14 that "Plaintiff knew about the 9th Circuit ruling three/four days prior to the hearing, and of the 15 existence of the Harper case approximately one week prior to that." Id. Thus, there is no merit to Court and falsely portray Plaintiff.
mislead the Court in the same opposition brief by stating that Plaintiff failed to argue the Harper 21 case at the April 21, 2011 summary judgment hearing. Mr. Sherman was incorrect in this 22 assertion, as Plaintiff did indeed raise the Harper case at the summary judgment hearing. See However, given that the Harper case was mentioned very briefly in the course of a hearing that ran 25 for one hour and 28 minutes, it is quite likely that Mr. Sherman simply made an honest mistake in 26 his opposition brief. In the future, Mr. Sherman should review the hearing transcript before 27 making any claims as to what was or was not raised at a hearing, and the Court will not look 28
Plaintiff's argument that Mr. Sherman deliberately misquoted Plaintiff in an attempt to mislead the 17
In his eleventh allegation, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Sherman deliberately attempted to Transcript of April 21, 2011 Proceedings before Judge Koh 55:17-25, 76:5-15, ECF No. 150. favorably on subsequent errors of this sort. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has presented no reason for the Court to believe that Mr. Sherman's error was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. 3
Plaintiff's twelfth allegation focuses on Mr. Sherman's representation at the summary
5 judgment hearing that he had submitted to the Court a MAV recording in which the DA's office 6 synched Defendant Burger's MAV audio to Defendant Temores's MAV video, thereby creating a 7 single recording in which the March 15, 2008 incident could be both seen and heard. Plaintiff 8 argues that if this is true, Plaintiff was misled as to the evidence presented to the Court for Plaintiff 9 was not provided with the exhibit containing the synched recording. Plaintiff also argues that such 10 a recording, if submitted, could mislead the Court into believing that Temores's MAV video included an audio recording of the incident.
Plaintiff's twelfth allegation is moot because the Court did not receive any synched recording. Mr. Sherman submitted Defendant Burger's MAV video (in which the incident can be 14 heard, but not seen) and Defendant Temores's MAV video (in which the incident can be seen, but 15 not heard). See Decl. of Steven A. Sherman ISO Mot. for Summary Judgment, Exs. 14-15. The 16 declaration submitted by Mr. Sherman in support of Defendants' summary judgment motion does 17 not list a synched video as an exhibit, see id., and none was received by the Court. Mr. Sherman 18 was simply mistaken when he represented that a synched video had been submitted. The Court 19 finds it troubling that Mr. Sherman seems to believe that he submitted an exhibit that he did not in 20 fact submit. As lead counsel, Mr. Sherman should be aware of the exhibits submitted in support of 21
Defendants' motions, and the Court admonishes Mr. Sherman that he should take care to remain 22 fully informed of the materials submitted to the Court as this case progresses. Nonetheless, as no 23 synched video was submitted, Plaintiff's claim is moot. The Court is well-aware that Temores's 24
MAV recording lacks audio, as the Court viewed the silent recording of the incident numerous 25 times.
Finally, in his thirteenth allegation, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' counsel Blakney
Boggs, acting under the supervision and direction of Mr. Sherman, made false statements in a declaration. On April 21, 2011, Judge Grewal ordered Defendants to produce the MAV recordings 2 in the same file type provided to Defendants' expert Warren Page by April 29, 2011. See Order 3
Boggs filed a declaration explaining that Defendants would produce the recordings by May 3, 5
2011, as Brian Furtado, a technologist for the Palo Alto Police Department, was on vacation until 6 that date. See Decl. of Blakney A. Boggs Re Court Order ¶¶ 10-12, ECF No. 152. In her 7 declaration, Ms. Boggs stated that Mr. Furtado was the only person at the Palo Alto Police 8
Ms. Boggs explained that Mr. Furtado had been in communication with Warren Page and handles 10 all court-requested copies of MAV videos. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. In his motion, Plaintiff contends that Ms. Palo Alto Police Department who might have produced the MAV recordings in Mr. Furtado's 14 absence. However, Ms. Bogg's April 29, 2011 declaration convincingly explains why each of 15 these individuals was not qualified to produce the recordings in the specific format required by 16
Judge Grewal's order. Ms. Bogg's declaration notes that only Mr. Furtado knew precisely the file 17 format produced to Warren Page and explains that the other individuals lacked experience with the 18 current MAV system. See Decl. of Blakney A. Boggs Re Court Order ¶ 16. Indeed, Ms. Boggs 19 even contacted one of the individuals personally to inquire into whether he could produce the 20 required files. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Plaintiff's evidence that Terri Hoang exported MAV video files in 21
2008 and his screenshots showing the job titles of other individuals do not suggest that Ms. Boggs' 22 declaration was a false and unjustified delay tactic. Rather, Ms. Boggs' declaration, written under 23 the supervision of Mr. Sherman, appears to justify the short, 4-day delay to which Plaintiff initially 24 stipulated.
committed by attorney Steven Sherman. However, the Court has noted a number of errors made by Granting Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 144. On April 29, 2011, after conferring with Plaintiff, Ms. Department qualified to produce the information required by Judge Grewal's order. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.
Boggs employed delay tactics and false statements to justify Defendants' failure to comply with Judge Grewal's order in a timely manner. Plaintiff suggests a number of other individuals at the
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds no misconduct or violation of law Mr. Sherman during discovery and motion practice in this case. Based on the evidence submitted,the Court is persuaded that these errors are the result of honest mistakes and an imperfect 2 understanding of the technology involved in this case. However, Mr. Sherman is on notice that if 3 the number of errors continues to accumulate, the Court may reach a different conclusion. Mr. 4
Sherman and Defendants are admonished to pay close attention to detail and to be as accurate as 5 possible in future discovery responses and representations to the Court. 6
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion Requesting
Appropriate Action Regarding the Law and Rules Committed by Attorney Steven Sherman.
However, in order to ensure that Plaintiff has a complete copy of the exhibits to Defendants' 9 motion for summary judgment, Mr. Sherman is ORDERED to produce to Plaintiff a complete and 10 accurate copy of Exhibit 18 to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by July 29, 2011. 11
IT IS SO ORDERED.