United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION RE:
DKT. NO. 364
LUCY
H. KOH United States District Judge.
On July
25, 2016, Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van filed a motion to
disqualify the undersigned judge for “[h]aving or
allowing discussions with Defense Counsel for one side in the
case; instructing or allowing instructions for
Defendant[’s] redactions or partial deletions to
Plaintiffs Amended Trial Exhibits; Accepting or allowing the
acceptance of Defendant[’s] redactions or partial
deletions to Plaintiffs Amended trial exhibits.” ECF
No. 364. In essence, Plaintiff believes that the Court has
approved, ex parte, certain redactions to Plaintiffs trial
exhibits proposed by Defendant Language Line, LLC
(“Defendant ”) on July 25, 2016. As explained
below, Plaintiffs motion has no foundation in fact.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for
disqualification.
I.
Plaintiff’s Motions for Disqualification
On July
22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for disqualification of
the undersigned judge. ECF No. 354. Plaintiff alleged that
the Court was biased in favor of Defendant. Because
Plaintiffs allegation of bias is unfounded, the Court denied
Plaintiffs motion for disqualification. ECF No. 357.
Plaintiff orally moved for reconsideration on July 22, 2016,
which the Court denied. ECF No. 356.
On July
25, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
disqualification. ECF No. 364. Plaintiff again alleges that
the Court is biased and now alleges that the Court has had ex
parte communications with Defendant about Defendant’s
proposed redactions to Plaintiffs trial exhibits.
II.
The Instant Motion for Disqualification
The
Court provides a brief background to the events underlying
Plaintiffs allegations in the instant motion for
disqualification. On June 30, 2016, the Court granted
Defendant’ss motion in limine to redact “the
identities of [Defendant’s] clients, billing rates,
billing amounts, and the subject matter of calls from
Plaintiffs trial exhibits.” ECF No. 293. The Court also
granted Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude
reference at trial to discovery disputes and accusations of
unethical behavior, as well as evidence of claims resolved at
summary judgment. Id. The Court’s order was
publicly filed and hard copies were given to the parties at
the June 30, 2016 pretrial conference. See Id. At
the pretrial conference, with both parties present, the Court
granted Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude
reference to Plaintiffs Santa Clara County Superior Court
case. ECF No. 294.
On July
15, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an amended list of trial
exhibits, ECF No. 339, and provided hard copies of those
exhibits to the Court. Many of Plaintiff s trial exhibits
contain redactions, apparently in order to comply with the
Court’s order on Defendant’s motions in limine.
On July
25, 2016, at 10:03 a.m., Defendant filed a “statement
regarding additional redactions to Plaintiffs amended trial
exhibits.” ECF No. 362. Defendant claims that
Plaintiffs redactions in Plaintiffs trial exhibits are not
fully opaque, and thus Defendant has “re-redacted over
these same redactions to ensure that the information could
not be read.” Id. In addition, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs trial exhibits do not fully comply
with the Court’s orders on Defendant’s motions in
limine. Id. Defendant proposes new trial exhibits
with redactions that Defendant asserts are fully opaque and
that bring Plaintiffs trial exhibits into compliance with the
Court’s orders. Id.
On July
25, 2016, at 12:12 p.m., Plaintiff filed the instant motion
for disqualification. Plaintiff asserts that
Defendant’s request for additional redactions to
Plaintiffs trial exhibits somehow demonstrates that this
Court had prior ex parte communications with Defendant about
the redactions. Specifically, Plaintiff accuses the Court of
“[h]aving or allowing discussions with Defense Counsel
for one side in the case; instructing or allowing
instructions for Defendant[’s] redactions or partial
deletions to Plaintiffs Amended Trial Exhibits; Accepting or
allowing the acceptance of Defendant[’s] redactions or
partial deletions to Plaintiffs Amended trial
exhibits.” ECF No. 364.
Plaintiffs
motion for disqualification lacks merit. This Court has not
engaged in any ex parte communications with Defendant. The
Court did not pre-approve (and has not approved)
Defendant’s proposed redactions. Although Plaintiff
apparently received copies of the proposed redactions from
Defendant following a status conference with the Court on
July 22, 2016, the parties’ exchange was not on the
record, and the Court did not receive copies of the proposed
redactions. Indeed, the Courtroom Deputy informed the parties
that any documents or motions for the Court’s
consideration must be publicly filed with the Court. Lastly,
the Court holds no bias or prejudice in this case. Plaintiffs
motion for disqualification is DENIED.
The
Court will address Defendant’s request for additional
redactions to Plaintiffs trial exhibits in a separate order.
Should Plaintiff wish to oppose the redactions proposed by
Defendant in ECF No. 362, Plaintiff shall file an ...