Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.), et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD 

In a previous order, the court found the appointment of a guardian ad litem was 

necessary to protect General Yeager’s interest in this case. Order Nov. 10, 2015, ECF No. 223.1

 

This order was issued following an evidentiary hearing on September 14, 2015. See Minutes, 

ECF No. 218. 

On December 7, 2015, General Yeager and his wife, Victoria Yeager, jointly 

moved for (1) the sealing of the November 10, 2015 order, (2) the sealing of all court records of 

the September 14, 2015 evidentiary hearing, and (3) the issuance of “a HIPPA compliant 

protective order requiring all of General Yeager’s confidential health and medical documents be 

either returned or destroyed, and otherwise prohibiting their use and any references thereto in any 

 1

 The court now has appointed a guardian ad litem. See ECF No. 227. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 228 Filed 12/29/15 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 

2

matters outside the present litigation.” Ex Parte App. Seal 1–2, ECF No. 225. They argue these 

measures are necessary “to protect General Yeager’s privacy and other interests, to save him any 

public discomfort and scrutiny, and to otherwise prevent the improper use and dissemination of 

materials and protected information produced at and in conjunction with the September 14th 

hearing.” Id. at 2–3. Intervenor Parsons Behle & Latimer has filed objections to the Yeagers’ 

request. ECF No. 226. 

The court has determined a guardian ad litem must be appointed to protect General 

Yeager’s interests in this case. This determination was based on, among other evidence, 

testimony offered at the September 14, 2015 evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, General Yeager 

was unable to answer questions about other recent hearings, the contents of his filings, how he 

prepared filings, how he made the court aware of matters generally, how his signature was 

applied to filings, and about the overall history of this case. See Order Nov. 10, 2015, at 8. He 

has also expressed surprise at the contents of filings bearing his signature. See id. at 4. In light of 

this evidence, the court cannot conclude General Yeager is aware of the contents of the current ex 

parte application, even though his electronic signature appears on its last page. 

Mrs. Yeager’s signature also appears on the pending ex parte application to seal. 

But it is unclear what interest Mrs. Yeager has in the relief she seeks. The ex parte application 

requests sealing because 

There is a significant danger here that the Court’s determination 

and the materials and information produced at the September 14th 

hearing upon which the Court’s determination is based will be used 

for improper purposes and to the detriment of General Yeager and 

his interests in having such information and materials remain 

private, including harming his reputation, promoting scandal, and 

leading to libelous statements about his capacity as well as 

character and fitness. 

Ex Parte App. 5. The ex parte application also explains that “any dissemination of materials or 

the hearing itself by others would be a violation of General Yeager’s privacy interests.” Id. at 6. 

Specifically, the ex parte application describes questions about General Yeager’s ability to 

proceed pro se and without a guardian ad litem in an appeal pending in California’s fifth appellate 

district, captioned Yeager v. Wild, Carter & Tipton, et al., No. F070631. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 228 Filed 12/29/15 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 ex parte application does not explain what interest Mrs. Yeager has in the 

application to seal. Rather, she seeks to seal the records on General Yeager’s behalf to protect his 

privacy interests and his interests in the appeal pending in California state court. The court 

previously has concluded Mrs. Yeager cannot be appointed as General Yeager’s guardian ad 

litem in this case. See, e.g., Order Nov. 10, 2015, at 16. Neither may she serve as his 

representative in this ex parte application. 

The ex parte application is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 28, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 228 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 3