Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH MILLER,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, et

al,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 02-2118 MJJ (MEJ)

ORDER REQUESTING

CLARIFICATION RE: VICTOR

PADDOCK

Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff Ralph Miller's Motion to Modify the Court's

February 6, 2006 Order. Relevant here is the Court's order for Miller to produce communications

with Victor Paddock. Based on the evidence before it, including Mr. Paddock's deposition

testimony in which he states that he was not acting as a lawyer in giving BCC advice, and that

Miller knew that he had not practiced as a lawyer for over 25 years, the Court found no attorneyclient privilege existed. Now, however, Miller has submitted documents, without authentication,

purportedly showing that Mr. Paddock provided legal advice, including invoices from Mr. Paddock

for "Legal Services." It is unclear how Mr. Paddock, an inactive member of the State Bar of

California, could bill for legal services and later claim in his deposition that he did not provide legal

services. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Miller to file the following by April 6, 2006:

1) A declaration from Victor Paddock (a) authenticating the invoices for legal services filed by

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 391 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Miller, (b) attesting as to whether the term "legal services" evidences an attorney-client

relationship, and (c) addressing why he, an inactive member of the State Bar of California

and contrary to his deposition testimony, billed Miller for legal services; and

2) A declaration from Ralph Miller stating the reasons why he reasonably believed that an

attorney-client relationship exists.

Miller should be mindful that both declarations shall only contain factual statements and not

make any further legal arguments. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the imposition of

sanctions, including possible denial of Miller's motion for modification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 391 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2