Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-117/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 905

Plaintiff Loop AI Labs, Inc. has filed a document styled as a “motion for relief from 

nondispositive pretrial order and objections.” Dkt. No. 905. In reality, the document contains a 

string of astonishing, and unsubstantiated, allegations of misconduct on the part of Magistrate 

Judge Donna Ryu, who has ably overseen the discovery in this case for nearly two years, and her 

law clerk. The accusations in this filing are characteristic of the outlandish and unprofessional 

manner in which Plaintiff’s counsel, Valeria Healy, has litigated this case, and cannot go 

unaddressed by this Court. If Plaintiff’s counsel is going to accuse a judicial officer and her staff 

of misconduct, the Court insists that she fully substantiate, under oath, every fact on which she 

bases these extraordinarily serious allegations. This order directs counsel to do exactly that, by 

5:00 p.m. on October 24, 2016. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Judge Ryu’s Underlying Order

On September 20, 2016, Judge Ryu granted Defendant Almawave USA, Inc.

(“Almawave”) leave to file a motion to recover Almawave witness Luca Ferri’s deposition-related 

travel expenses. Dkt. No. 893. Judge Ryu gave Almawave the opportunity to file a three-page 

letter brief in support of the motion, and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a three-page 

opposition. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s purported “motion for relief” appeals not an actual 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 915 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sanctions order, but instead an order that simply allows each party the opportunity to present its 

position on Almawave’s request to recover expenses.

Healy’s allegations of judicial misconduct relate to a dispute between the parties that arose 

during the January 20, 2016 deposition of Mariantonietta Perri. See Dkt. No. 905-1 (“Healy 

Decl.”) ¶ 15; see also Docket No. 905-2 at MPX-324. Healy claims that Judge Ryu’s law clerk 

held an ex parte phone call with Almaviva Defendants’ counsel. Healy Decl. ¶¶ 21-23. Healy 

claims that she was told of this alleged communication by the interpreter who was present for the 

deposition. Id. ¶ 23. But Healy has not submitted a declaration from the interpreter, or any other 

evidence, to substantiate the allegation that an ex parte communication with counsel occurred. In 

addition, Healy claims that Judge Ryu’s law clerk “held a sort of hearing” by phone. See id. ¶ 23. 

In fact, the transcript of this telephonic conference shows that Judge Ryu’s law clerk listened to a 

statement by each of the Parties, took “copious notes[,]” and promised to communicate the

information to Judge Ryu so that Judge Ryu could promptly issue an order and the deposition 

could move forward. See Dkt. No. 905-2 at MPX-270: 10-15, MPX-278: 16-19. Appropriately, 

Judge Ryu’s law clerk made clear that she only had authority to gather information, not render any 

sort of ruling. See id. at MPX-278: 22-25 (“Again, I’m just the law clerk, and not the judge. I 

can’t grant you permission to submit anything. It’s not my place. It’s not appropriate.”)

B. Counsel’s Unsubstantiated Allegations of Misconduct by Judge Ryu and her 

Staff

In her filing, Healy accuses Judge Ryu and her law clerk of serious misconduct. That 

accusation rests on at least the following assertions, none of which Healy supports with specific 

facts sworn under oath. Given the gravity of these accusations, Healy is ordered to submit a sworn 

declaration, under penalty of perjury, containing each and every fact supporting the following 

claims and characterizations:

1. Healy characterizes Judge Ryu’s law clerk as “a law school classmate and social 

acquaintance of Almaviva Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Kimberly Culp.” Dkt. No. 905 

(“Mot.”) 1:21-23. Similarly, Healy declares that “Ms. Culp is well acquainted with . . . 

[Judge Ryu’s law clerk] because they were in the same class in law school, at UC 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 915 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Hastings College of Law . . . .” Healy Decl. ¶ 22. Healy must provide all facts on 

which she bases her claim that defense counsel and Judge Ryu’s law clerk are “social 

acquaintances” or “well acquainted.” The fact that two people are part of the same 

graduating class of hundreds of students in no way establishes, or even suggests, the 

improper bias that Healy’s motion asserts. Healy must specifically identify any basis 

in her personal knowledge for her characterization of the purported relationship 

between defense counsel and Judge Ryu’s law clerk. If she has no basis in personal 

knowledge for this characterization, she must so admit in the sworn declaration.

2. Healy contends that Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. engaged in “improper ex parte

communications with [Judge Ryu’s law clerk].” Mot. 4:16. Healy must provide, in 

detail, all facts she contends establish such improper ex parte communications. If, as 

appears to be the case, Healy did not hear the alleged “ex parte communications” 

firsthand, she must submit evidence, under oath, from someone with personal 

knowledge. See Healy Decl. ¶ 23 (Healy admits that she “learned of [defense 

counsels’] ex parte communication with [Judge Ryu’s law clerk] later that day from the 

interpreter who indicated that she and [defense counsel] spoke to [Judge Ryu’s law 

clerk]”).

3. Healy asserts that Almawave USA “improper[ly] procur[ed]” Order 397 “from [Judge 

Ryu’s law clerk].” Mot. 4:17-18. Healy must provide all facts supporting her 

allegation that counsel “procured” an order from Judge Ryu’s law clerk. In other 

words, Healy appears to insinuate, with no basis whatsoever, either that Judge Ryu’s 

clerk, rather than the judge herself, issued the order in question, or that Judge Ryu's 

clerk somehow acted improperly with regard to the order. See Healy Decl. ¶ 26 

(claiming that in Order 397, a written order signed by Judge Ryu, “[Judge Ryu’s law 

clerk] characterizes statements . . . as [Healy’s] concessions”), ¶ 31 (claiming that 

“there is no case law supporting the relief [Defense counsel] was able to obtain from 

[Judge Ryu’s law clerk]”); Mot. 4:15-19 (asserting that phone call on January 20 was 

“[law clerk’s] unlawful hearing”). It should go without saying that it is not improper in 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 915 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

any way for a law clerk to make a recommendation to a judge regarding the resolution

of a discovery dispute.

4. Healy claims that Judge Ryu’s law clerk “s[ought] to influence the Judge to issue 

Orders in favor of Almaviva and against Loop AI, based solely on [Judge Ryu’s law 

clerk’s] determinations derived from communications she had no power to entertain.” 

Mot. 4:21-23. Healy must provide all facts supporting the allegation that Judge Ryu’s 

law clerk did anything improper in any way. Again, it should be plain to any 

competent attorney that there is nothing improper about a law clerk gathering 

information from the parties regarding a discovery dispute while the judge is 

unavailable, then conveying that information to the judge so the judge can resolve the 

dispute.

Healy contends in her filing that she “means no disrespect to any judicial officer, or their 

staff,” and asserts that she “is required to submit this appeal so that [Loop] can preserve an 

important issue for further review.” Dkt. No. 905 at 1. That weak disclaimer reflects a profound 

lack of appreciation for what a serious matter it is to accuse the Court and its staff of ethical 

violations on the flimsy grounds asserted in Healy’s filing. A declaration “to the best of [Healy’s] 

knowledge, information and belief,” Healy Decl. at 1, will not suffice to back up these 

extraordinarily serious allegations. Instead, Healy is ordered to present all facts, under oath and in 

detail, that she claims support the above accusations. Failure to comply with this order by October 

24 will result in sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/19/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 915 Filed 10/19/16 Page 4 of 4