Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's ex parte motion for clarification of a previous order regarding redactions and an extension of time. The court granted a three-week extension for the parties to meet and confer on redactions and clarified that the prior order's reference to 'gratuitously inflammatory' information refers to filings that serve only to gratify private spite or promote scandal, rather than being relevant to the dispute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting a three-week extension of time for the parties to meet and confer regarding narrowly tailored redactions.“The Court therefore GRANTS the Parties a three-week extension of time to comply with its August 14, 2020 Order, including further meet-and-confer efforts to agree upon narrowly tailored redactions.” | agree with court The court granted the extension based on the parties' report that they had met and conferred but failed to reach an agreement, requiring more time. This is a standard procedural accommodation to ensure the parties have a reasonable opportunity to resolve the redaction issues as directed by the prior order. |
Clarifying the meaning of 'gratuitously inflammatory' in the context of the August 14, 2020 Order.“In cautioning the Parties to avoid “gratuitously inflammatory” information, the emphasis is on “gratuitously”—the Parties shall endeavor to avoid filing information that is not relevant to the instant dispute but that instead serves only “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”” | agree with court The court interpreted its own prior language by citing established case law (Kamakana and Nixon) to define the scope of 'gratuitously inflammatory' as information lacking relevance and serving only improper purposes. This is a correct application of the principle that courts should avoid unnecessary litigation and protect against abusive filings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It addresses the specific requests for clarification and extension by the plaintiff. The court correctly interprets its own prior order and cites appropriate authority (Kamakana/Nixon) to define the term 'gratuitously inflammatory.' The extension is reasonable given the parties' failure to reach an agreement on redactions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, 13 ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff, 14 EXTENSION OF TIME, AND v. (2) CLARIFYING AUGUST 14, 2020 15 ORDER [ECF NO. 55] HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 16 a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS (ECF No. 60) 17 HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN SPENCER, an individual, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Ex-Parte Motion for 22 Clarification of Order at Docket Entry 55 (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 60). In its August 14, 23 2020 Order (ECF No. 55), the Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer “regarding any 24 narrowly tailored redactions necessary to protect Defendants’ confidential business 25 information.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff reports that the Parties have met and conferred, Ex Parte 26 Mot. at 1, “but Defendants have redacted all of the[ paragraphs and exhibits referenced in 27 the Court’s August 14, 2020 Order] fully,” meaning “the parties need time to meet and 28 confer again, thereby requiring an extension.” Id. at 2. Further, “to file things properly, ] || Plaintiff needs at least 3 weeks more each time to research each topic, the history of law 2 || on that topic, and most recent decision that could impact the same.” Id. (footnote omitted). 3 To the extent Plaintiff requests clarification, Plaintiff is correct that “the Court 4 ||conclude[d] that Defendants ha[d] established that compelling reasons exist to file under 5 || seal portions of” various paragraphs and documents as enumerated in the August 14, 2020 6 || Order. See ECF No. 55 at 4 (emphasis added). The Court therefore ordered the Parties to 7 |{meet and confer “regarding any narrowly tailored redactions necessary to protect 8 || Defendants’ confidential business information.” See id. at 5 (emphasis added). The Court 9 ||therefore GRANTS the Parties a three-week extension of time to comply with its 10 || August 14, 2020 Order, including further meet-and-confer efforts to agree upon narrowly 11 || tailored redactions. 12 The Court also ordered on August 14, 2020 that, “/t/o avoid superfluous motion 13 || practice, the Court urges the Parties to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective 14 |lorder and/or before filing information that may be confidential or gratuitously 15 || inflammatory.” ECF No. 55 at 5 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff “humbly seeks 16 clarification on ‘and/or before filing information that may be confidential or gratuitously 17 |/inflammatory.’” Ex Parte Mot. at 2. In cautioning the Parties to avoid “gratuitously 18 |/inflammatory” information, the emphasis is on “gratuitously”—the Parties shall endeavor 19 |/to avoid filing information that is not relevant to the instant dispute but that instead serves 20 ||only “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 21 ||release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th 22 || Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 ||Dated: August 28, 2020 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 27 28