Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00490/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00490-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

17-cv-0490-L-AGS

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

Ernest CARDENAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sean STACKLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-0490-L-AGS

TENTATIVE ORDER ON 

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATIONS

(ECF Nos. 17, 18, & 23)

To aid the parties’ preparation for the April 24, 2018 hearing, the Court issues the 

following tentative rulings. 

The Court concludes defendant Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy’s ex parte 

applications are procedurally proper. Ex parte relief is a form of emergency relief, which 

requires the movant show “why the regular noticed motion procedures must be bypassed.” 

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 

Courts generally require a “showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking 

relief.” Souphasith v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 15-cv-1269-DAD-SKO, 2016 

WL 4011510, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2016) (citations omitted). 

Two of defendant’s applications address discovery issues: to strike plaintiff’s experts 

and compel plaintiff’s deposition. (See ECF Nos. 17 & 18.) There is good cause to bring 

these issues to the Court ex parte because the Scheduling Order’s deadlines are fast 

approaching. (See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 16, at 2-3.) If defendant had pursued the 

regular noticed motion procedures, the Court would have resolved the motions after it 

Case 3:17-cv-00490-L-AGS Document 27 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-0490-L-AGS

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

became impossible for defendant to comply with the Scheduling Order deadlines, and there 

is no guarantee the Court would grant defendant relief after the fact. 

The final ex parte application is one for an “immediate protective order” because 

plaintiff’s counsel allegedly had communications with parties represented by counsel. 

(ECF No. 23.) Here, there is good cause for requesting immediate relief because discovery 

is ongoing, depositions have not yet been conducted, and ill-gotten evidence or attempts to 

influence witnesses can seriously prejudice defendant in preparing for and presenting his

case.

Accordingly, the Court will consider the merits of defendant’s ex parte applications.

1. Ex Parte Application to Strike Experts (ECF No. 17) – Granted

Unless plaintiff can show his failure to timely provide expert reports—as required 

by the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16, at 2 ¶5) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(a)(2)(B)—was substantially justified or harmless, he is precluded from using 

Dr. Stephanie Rizzardi or Dr. Lester Zackler as witnesses, or to supply their testimony, 

opinions, reports, or any other related information as evidence on any motion or at trial.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

2. Ex Parte Application to Compel (ECF No. 18) – Granted in Part and

Denied in Part

Defendant failed to meet and confer before bringing this motion and, therefore, is

not eligible to recover sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). In any event, 

both parties share some responsibility for failing to resolve their disputes about depositions. 

Thus, an award of sanctions would be unjust. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer and set mutually agreeable times for the 

depositions of Ernest Cardenas, Robert Bersamira, and Michelle Hoeschen. By April 30, 

2018, the parties must file a joint stipulation setting forth the dates for these depositions. 

The parties must attach any deposition notices and requests for documents to the joint 

stipulation. Any failure to appear thereafter, without first seeking Court relief may be 

treated as contempt of Court order under Rule 37(b)(1).

Case 3:17-cv-00490-L-AGS Document 27 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-0490-L-AGS

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. Ex Parte Application for Protective Order (ECF No. 23) – Continued

The parties have alleged insufficient information for the Court to resolve whether 

plaintiff has engaged in improper communications with Navy employees who are

“represented parties” as defined under California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100. 

See Civ. LR 83.4(b). Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff to file a declaration by 

May 4, 2018, listing: (a) the names of any current or former Naval personnel whom he has 

engaged in conversation; (b) when the communication occurred; (c) by what means they 

communicated; (d) a brief description of the substance of that communication, such that 

attorney-client privilege or work-product protection is not revealed; and (e) whether 

counsel first inquired if the individual was represented by counsel or gave them an 

opportunity to consult independent counsel before engaging in the communication. 

Defendant must file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages excluding exhibits, by 

May 11, 2018, that demonstrates on what basis each communication is improper. Plaintiff 

may file a response, not to exceed five pages excluding exhibits, by May 18, 2018.

Dated: April 23, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00490-L-AGS Document 27 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3