Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01127/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Default

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER MARTIN, an individual

and on behalf of those

similarly situated and the

general public,

No. 2:07-CV-01127-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AT&T WIRELESS CORPORATION,

AT&T CORPORATION, CINGULAR

WIRELESS CORPORATION, CINGULAR

WIRELESS LLC, NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. and

DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application

relating to Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Class Counsel,

Martha Bronson, Esq. The ex parte application requests an order:

(1) sealing all records that relate to or refer or otherwise

reveal Ms. Bronson’s financial information, (2) enjoining

Defendants’ counsel from filing such documents in the future, 

///

Case 2:07-cv-01127-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

(3) granting Plaintiff the right to move for sanctions against

Defendants, (4) continuing the hearing on the Motion to

Disqualify at least three weeks, and (5) enjoining Defendants

from making private, personal information public in the future. 

The Court will address these requests in turn:

1. Sealing the Court Records

On September 10, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to

disqualify Plaintiff’s class counsel, Ms. Bronson. That motion

is based, in sum, on the fact that Ms. Bronson is married to

Peter Martin, the class representative. In support of that

motion, Defendants filed several public records or publicly

available documents that established that Ms. Bronson and

Mr. Martin were married, that they resided at the same address,

that they shared a telephone number, and that they had done so

during the period relating to Mr. Martin’s complaint. Included

in this documentation was Defendants’ Exhibit B, an income and

expense declaration obtained from the records of Superior Court

of California, County of San Joaquin. In this income and expense

report, dated May 12, 2005, and signed by Ms. Bronson, Peter

Martin is identified as Ms. Bronson’s husband. Also included in

this income and expense statement is a copy of a Form 1040

Schedule C that Ms. Bronson filed for the year 2003. 

As it exists in the record in San Joaquin County, the income

and expense statement and the attached Schedule C contain

Ms. Bronson’s financial information, including her Social

Security Number. This information is publicly available. 

Case 2:07-cv-01127-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Having reviewed the record, this Court finds that before filing

this document in this action, Defendants conscientiously redacted

Ms. Bronson’s financial information, including her Social

Security Number reflected at the top of the Schedule C. 

Unfortunately, Defendants failed to redact the Social

Security Number at the top of the second page of the Schedule C. 

Contrary to Ms. Bronson’s assertions, this is the only instance

where the Defendants failed to properly redact private

information. Local Rule 39-140(a). Defendants acknowledge that

they inadvertently failed to redact that portion of the Schedule

C. This Court finds no reason to believe the failure to redact

was anything other than an inadvertent mistake (despite

Plaintiff’s overly dramatic assertion that the purpose of

Defendants’ “blasphemous conduct is to intentionally harm, annoy

and harass plaintiff’s counsel to discourage her from pursuing

this lawsuit”). Defendants do not object to redacting that

portion of the Schedule C that contains Ms. Bronson’s Social

Security Number. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to seal

Defendants’ Exhibit B to their Motion to Disqualify Class Counsel.

2. Sanctions and Injunctions Against Defendants

Despite Plaintiff’s inflammatory accusations, this Court

finds no misconduct on the part of Defendants or their counsel.

Therefore, there is no basis upon which to issue any injunctions

against Defendants or their counsel and no basis to issue

sanctions.

Case 2:07-cv-01127-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

3. Continuance of Hearing on Motion to Disqualify

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion

to Disqualify Ms. Bronson. Defendants’ Motion was filed

September 11, 2007, and was set for hearing on October 12, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than September 28, 2007,

fourteen days prior to the hearing. Local Rule 78-230(c).

In a declaration dated September 28, 2007, Ms. Bronson

declares that she did not become aware of the issue with her

Social Security Number until earlier that day when she turned to

the file to begin preparing a response to the Motion to

Disqualify. At that time, she realized that Defendants had

disclosed her Social Security Number and, because she needed to

immediately attend to the issue, was unable to prepare an

opposition to the motion to disqualify. This included preparing

this ex parte application, which the Court notes is at best, over

stated. Nevertheless, this course of conduct apparently required

all of the precious few hours Ms. Bronson had allocated to

opposing Defendants’ motion to disqualify her.

Plaintiff now requests the Court continue Defendants’ Motion

to allow Plaintiff to adequately respond “without the burden of

having to deal with her financial security due to defendants ...

placing her financial well-being in jeopardy.” Because Plaintiff

cites no basis for failing to timely file an opposition, the

request to continue the hearing is DENIED. For the same reasons,

the request for an order shortening time to file an opposition on

October 5, 2007 is also DENIED.

///

Case 2:07-cv-01127-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Plaintiff’s ex parte application

is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to seal Defendants’ Exhibit B to their Motion to

Disqualify Class Counsel. The remainder of Plaintiff’s ex parte

application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01127-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5