Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00104/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00104-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

- 1 - 05cv104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN J. HUBBARD; BARBARA

HUBBARD,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05-CV-104 – IEG (BLM)

ORDER: 1) DENYING

APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO

FILE EX PARTE; and 2) DENYING

REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA

REVIEW

[Doc. No. 106]

vs.

YARDAGE TOWN, INC. d/b/a YARDAGE

TOWN; STANCIL G. JONES,

Defendants.

Presently before the court is David W. Peters’s (“appellant”) application to file his supersedeas

bond ex parte and request for an in camera review of relevant bond documents. (Doc. No. 106.)

On July 5, 2007, the court granted appellant’s motion to file under seal certain documents

related to a supersedeas bond. (Doc. No. 99.) Also in the order, the court ordered appellant to file an

appropriate supersedeas bond within 14 days from the date the order was filed, i.e., July 19, 2007.

(Id.) On July 13, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file abstracts of judgment under seal.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a supersedeas bond to the court for approval. However, the

bond was not approved and the documents were returned because appellant was not simply seeking

to file the bond documents under seal (i.e., preventing public access), but also to file the bond

documents ex parte (i.e., without proper service to opposing counsel), which the court did not

Case 3:05-cv-00104-IEG-BLM Document 109 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 The proposed Bond Sureties are David Peters and Joseph Andrews. (Doc. No. 106 at 2 n.1.)

2

 Plaintiffs’ attorneys, as well as appellant, are bound by both Rules of Professional Conduct

of the State Bar of California and Local Civil Rule 83.4-83.5, which sets a standard of conduct for

attorneys appearing before the court. As such, appellant should be assured plaintiffs’ counsel will not

disseminate or utilize information related to this litigation to endanger appellant or his family.

- 2 - 05cv104

authorize in its July 5, 2007 order. On September 17, 2007, plaintiff filed an application for writ of

execution because appellant had failed to file a supersedeas bond in a timely fashion. On September

19, 2007, appellant submitted a “Notice of Preliminary Filing of Documents,” which again did not

serve plaintiffs with the relevant bond documents. On September 20, 2007, appellant filed the instant

motions, (Doc. No. 106), and plaintiff filed an opposition on September 25, 2007, (Doc. No. 107). 

In his instant motions, appellant requests the court allow him to file bond documents that

contain information about the personal residences of the proposed Bond Sureties1

 without serving the

documents on opposing counsel. Appellant also requests in camera review of these documents.

Appellant claims the personal safety of the proposed Bond Sureties would be at risk if their personal

residences were disclosed to plaintiffs’ counsel. Appellant claims people associated with plaintiffs’

counsel have attempted to retaliate against appellant and appellant’s clients for actions unrelated to

the instant litigation. Plaintiff argues appellant’s allegations are outlandish and unfounded

accusations. Plaintiff’s counsel further argues appellant’s fanciful claims are insufficient to depart

from the general requirement that all filings must be served to opposing counsel. The court agrees.

In its July 5, 2007 order, the court stated its rationale for allowing appellant to file under seal

was grounded in the privacy concerns of his family members and not appellant’s allegations of

misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel and their associates. (Doc. No. 106.) In other words, the court

allowed the documents to be filed under seal to prevent the general public from accessing personal

information. The court did not credit appellant’s allegations about the potential retaliatory actions by

certain individuals, most of whom are not involved in this lawsuit. Furthermore, there are no specific

factual allegations or evidence of misconduct by plaintiffs’ counsel, Lynn Hubbard, Scottlynn

Hubbard, and Mark Potter.2

 Accordingly, appellant has not established adequate reasons why he

should be exempted from the requirement to serve litigation filings to opposing counsel. See Local

Civil Rule 83.3. 

Case 3:05-cv-00104-IEG-BLM Document 109 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 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

3

 The court notes that the abstracts of judgment, which were issued by the Clerk of Court on

September 18, 2007 upon application by plaintiff, contains the judgment debtor’s name (i.e.,

appellant) and the address of his last known residence.

- 3 - 05cv104

The court ordered appellant to file a supersedeas bond for approval by the court no later than

July 19, 2007. (Doc. No. 99.) As of the date of this order, more than two and a half months after the

court’s July 5, 2007 order, no proper supersedeas bond has been filed or approved by the court.

Accordingly, execution of judgment has not been stayed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) (“When an appeal

is taken, the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay . . . . The bond may be given

at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal . . . . The stay is effective when the supersedeas

bond is approved by the court.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, as reflected on the court’s docket,

the Clerk of Court issued abstracts of judgment and a writ of execution on September 18, 2007.3

 (Doc.

Nos. 103, 105.) The court will take no further action absent appropriate application by appellant. For

the foregoing reasons, the court hereby: 1) DENIES plaintiff’s “ex parte application for relief from

the customary requirement to serve opposing counsel”; and 2) DENIES plaintiff’s ex parte request

for in camera review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2007

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-00104-IEG-BLM Document 109 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3