Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01186/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01186-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAYTON HARMSTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01186 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE, MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY, AND MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

Currently before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion to strike the declaration of attorney Lawrence

Hecimovich, motion for discovery of Hecimovich’s billing statements, and motion for sanctions. The

motions are scheduled for hearing on March 14, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court

finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing.

In its order of January 29, 2008, the Court clarified its order awarding sanctions to defendants

for plaintiffs’ violation of a protective order, explaining that the sanctions were civil, not criminal, in

nature. The Court also suggested that it had misinterpreted the declarations submitted by defendants

in support of the amount of sanctions, and asked defendants to resubmit a declaration of hours spent on

the protective order issue. Plaintiffs’ current motion was filed in response to defendants’ new

declaration.

Although neither party has raised the issue, the Court notes that plaintiffs have appealed the

Court’s award of sanctions to the Ninth Circuit, having filed a notice of appeal on November 16, 2007.

“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997); see also

Case 3:07-cv-01186-SI Document 141 Filed 03/03/08 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

Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001). In light of plaintiffs’ appeal, the Court

finds that while it was appropriate for the Court to clarify its order granting sanctions, see id. (“There

are a number of exceptions to the general rule that a district court loses jurisdiction upon the filing of

a notice of appeal. A district court may, for example, retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors or

clarify its judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).”), it was error for the Court to address the amount

of sanctions itself in the January 29, 2008 Order. More significantly, because plaintiffs’ appeal of the

sanctions award is still before the Ninth Circuit, it would be error for the Court to address plaintiffs’

motions now. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiffs’ motions without prejudice to reconsideration

when jurisdiction over the sanctions issue is transferred from the Ninth Circuit back to this Court. In

the meantime, defendants’ attorneys shall preserve their billing records to enable the Court to review

them in camera should the need arise in the future. The Court also notes that it is not inclined to grant

plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against defendants in the absence of any affirmative evidence of

wrongdoing, which plaintiffs have thus far failed to put forth.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs’ motions

regarding the Hecimovich declaration [Docket No. 137]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01186-SI Document 141 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2