Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 112)

Defendant the College of Health & Human Services, San Francisco State University, has

filed a letter asking that the Court issue an order directing Plaintiff Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre to

stop contacting University employees about her lawsuit and instead work through the office of the

University’s counsel. The Court construes this request as a motion for a protective order. See, e.g.,

Broadnax v. Department of Veteran Affairs Washington Mut. Bank, No. 2:04cv693, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 9549, at *15-16 (E.D. Va. May 19, 2005) (addressing defendant’s motion for a protective

order to prohibit plaintiff from contacting employees of defendant except through counsel).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a party may seek a protective order to prevent

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The

College suggests that it is being oppressed by Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s communications with

employees because her conduct violates certain unidentified “rules.” 

Although the College does not specify what rules are at issue, it appears that it is referring to

the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1) (providing that every

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 119 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1 See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1-100(B)(2) (“‘Member’ means a member of the State Bar of

California.”).

2

member of the bar of this Court and any attorney permitted to practice in this Court must be familiar

and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of

California). California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 provides that, “[w]hile representing a

client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation

with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the

member has the consent of the other lawyer.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 2-100(A).

The problem with the College’s argument is that Rule 2-100 is not a bar to Ms. KellerMcIntyre’s communicating with University employees. The rule states that a member of the

California State Bar1 cannot communicate directly or indirectly with a represented party, but Ms.

Keller-McIntyre is not a member of the Bar. Cf. Eldaghar v. City of N.Y. Department of Citywide

Administrative Servs., No. 02 Civ. 9151 (KMW) (HBP), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3503, at *3

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2004) (“Although professional ethics restrictions that may prevent an attorney

from contacting a current or former employee of a represented, adverse party, the pro se plaintiff

here is not an attorney and is not, therefore, subject to these professional restrictions.”). But cf.

Bisciglia v. Lee, 370 F. Supp. 2d 874, 879 (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2005) (“[A]lthough they are pro se

litigants, Plaintiffs must abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit a

lawyer from communicating with a party known to be represented by another lawyer.”).

Even if Ms. Keller-McIntyre could be held to the requirements of the California Rules of

Professional Conduct, the Court notes that comments to Rule 2-011 specifically note that “the rule

does not prohibit a member who is also a party to a legal matter from directly or indirectly

communicating on his or her own behalf with a represented party. Such a member has independent

rights as a party which should not be abrogated because of his professional status.” Cal. R. Prof.

Conduct 2-100, comments (emphasis added). Of course, “[t]o prevent any possible abuse in such

situations, the counsel for the opposing party may advise that party (1) about the risks and benefits

of communications with a lawyer-party, and (2) not to accept or engage in communications with the

lawyer-party.” Id.

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 119 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

That Rule 2-100 does not apply to Ms. Keller-McIntyre, however, does not mean that the

College cannot seek relief because Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s conduct is purportedly an annoyance or

nuisance. Cf. Eldaghar, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3503, at *4 (noting that “no litigant, whether pro se

or represented, has the right to harass a potential witness or to make a nuisance of himself”). At this

juncture, however, the Court cannot conclude that Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s behavior has reached such

a level that a protective order is necessary. Ms. Keller-McIntyre, however, is forewarned that the

Court is not precluding the College from seeking a protective order should her future conduct rise to

the level of annoyance or nuisance.

This order disposes of Docket No. 112.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 119 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre

P.O. Box 320662

San Francisco, CA 94132

415/314-4204 (cell)

415/405-3943 (work)

ALL OTHER COUNSEL/PARTIES TO

RECEIVE ORDER VIA ELECTRONIC

FILING

Dated: November 9, 2006 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 119 Filed 11/09/06 Page 4 of 4