Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

ORDER

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY 

AT THE UPCOMING HEARING; 

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR AN 

EXTENSION TO FILE A REPLY; 

AND

(3) SCHEDULING HEARING ON 

PENDING MOTIONS.

[ECF Nos. 134, 140, 142.]

On August 2, 2019, the Court granted Defendants BDL Products, Inc., Cargenix 

Holdings LLC, Henry Ji, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., and TNK Therapeutics, Inc.’s

(“Defendants”) motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, ECF No. 126, and 

entered judgement against Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler (“Plaintiff”), ECF No. 127. 

The dismissal order and judgment have spawned numerous follow-up motions aiming to 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 143 Filed 09/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

have the Court reconsider its August 2, 2019 ruling and seeking other forms of relief 

including a change of venue, permission to exceed page limitations, an extension of 

motion deadlines, and the Court’s recusal or disqualification. ECF Nos. 128, 133, 134, 

138, 140, 142. With the most recent orders, see ECF Nos. 132, 135, 141, the Court has 

ruled on the requests and motions set out in ECF Nos. 128, 133, and 138. 

Plaintiff’s remaining motions and requests, contained in ECF Nos. 134, 140, and 

142, are described below. On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of the 

order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the entry of clerk’s judgment. ECF No. 

134. On September 6, 2019, the Court scheduled a hearing on this motion for November 

15, 2019. ECF No. 139. The Court directed a response be filed on or before October 4, 

2019 and a reply on or before October 15, 2019. ECF No. 139. On September 7, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to appear remotely at the upcoming hearing and to extend the time 

permitted to file a reply. ECF No. 140-1. Thereafter, on September 10, 2019, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for recusal and/or disqualification. ECF No. 142.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Remotely with Written Instructions

Plaintiff requests leave to participate remotely if a hearing is held on the pending 

motions. See ECF No. 140. Plaintiff offers that she is “unable to fly to California for the 

purposes of a hearing.” ECF No. 140-1 at 1.

Permitting a party’s remote appearance “is within the sole discretion of the Court.” 

Mohammadkhani v. Anthony, No. CVS-02-0095-KJD-LRL, 2007 WL 2325162, at *3 (D. 

Nev. Aug. 10, 2007). Similarly, it is in the Court’s discretion whether to hold a hearing or 

to decide the motions on the papers. See CivLR 7(d)(1). Here, upon good cause showing, 

and in light of Plaintiff’s circumstances, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and 

permits Plaintiff to appear remotely if a hearing on the pending motions is held.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court provide written instructions on how to appear 

remotely at least one week prior to the hearing date. ECF No. 140-1 at 8. Plaintiff shall 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 143 Filed 09/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk at (619) 557-5539 at least two (2) days 

prior to the hearing to make appropriate arrangements for an appearance via telephone. 

Cf. Johnson v. Mitchell, No. 2:10-CV-1968 GEB GGH, 2012 WL 2446098, at *8 (E.D. 

Cal. June 26, 2012) (requiring party to call deputy clerk to obtain instructions for a 

telephonic appearance).

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to extend time permitted to file a reply 

and orders a reply due December 6, 2019. As a result, the Court reschedules the hearing 

on the pending motion for reconsideration of the judgment from November 15, 2019 to 

December 20, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. See ECF No. 134. Finally, the Court 

sets a concurrent hearing on the Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and disqualification for 

December 20, 2019. See ECF No. 142. A response to both motions should be filed on or 

before October 18, 2019 and any reply should be filed on or before December 6, 2019.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the Entry of Clerk’s Judgment, ECF No. 134, 

and Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal and Disqualification, ECF No. 142, is scheduled 

on December 20, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D.

2. The scheduled November 15, 2019 hearing is continued to December 20, 2019.

3. In the event that a hearing is held on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff may appear 

remotely.

4. If Plaintiff chooses to appear remotely, Plaintiff must contact the Court’s 

courtroom deputy clerk at (619) 577-5539 at least two (2) days prior to the hearing 

to make appropriate arrangements for a remote appearance. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 143 Filed 09/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

5. If Plaintiff chooses to submit a reply, Plaintiff’s reply is due on or before 

December 6, 2019. Defendant should file a response by October 18, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 143 Filed 09/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4