Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THOMAS F. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

ORDER

Defendant White’s application for an order directing plaintiffs’ counsel David

Replogle to disclose to White counsel Replogle’s fee agreement with Mauricio Rodriguez

Borrego is DENIED.

First, White’s motion is in essence a motion to compel the production of documents,

yet he does not cite any authority that suggests he is entitled to discovery after judgement has

been entered against him and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

Second, White has not established that he has a need for the fee agreement. White is

aware of the agreement and there does not appear to be any dispute that the agreement exists.

Moreover, White’s motion to vacate–which is predicated on the agreement–is based on fraud

on the Court. The agreement has been submitted to the Court under seal and the Court is

capable of evaluating the agreement, and any previous statements made by counsel Replogle 

//

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 723 Filed 12/21/07 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

about the agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 723 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2