Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02494/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441ds Removal- Contract Dispute

---

1

18cv2494-WQH (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

MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SICHENZIA ROSS FERENCE LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2494-WQH (MSB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO VARY THE 

COURT’S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES TO 

PERMIT THE SUBMISSION OF 

CORRESPONDENCE IN CONNECTION 

WITH FORTHCOMING JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

[ECF NO. 57]

On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Application to Vary the Court’s 

Individual Practices to Permit the Submission of Correspondence in Connection with 

Forthcoming Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute.” (See ECF No. 57.) In 

the motion, Plaintiff asks for the Court to allow it to file “copies of correspondence 

between counsel in connection with the forthcoming Joint Motion.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

argues that the correspondence is itself central to several substantive issues within the 

motion, and that Plaintiff should be permitted to present the complete correspondence 

to respond to Defendant Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP’s (“the Firm’s”) request for severe 

Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document 58 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2494-WQH (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

remedies, including monetary sanctions and disqualification of counsel. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel represents in his declaration that the Firm’s counsel does not object to 

the inclusion of the complete correspondence. (ECF No. 57-1 at 3.) 

Having reviewed the unopposed ex parte motion and declaration in support, it 

appears to the Court that this discovery dispute and request for sanctions warrants the 

inclusion of the relevant correspondence between counsel. The Court therefore GRANTS

the motion. The Court encourages Plaintiff to submit only the correspondence that is 

necessary to the resolution of the issues presented by the joint motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02494-WQH-MSB Document 58 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2