Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00843/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00843-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLEOPHAS WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-000843 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

MOTION FOR PRESERVATION OF

EVIDENCE

On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for preservation of video taped

evidence in Defendant’s possession.1

 In order for the court to find that ex parte relief is appropriate,

there must be a showing of irreparable prejudice if the underlying motion is heard according to

regularly notice motion procedures. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty

Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 492 (C.D.Cal. 1995). While the court notes that either party may move for a

protective order to preserve evidence for use at trial, once a complaint is filed, the Defendant is

automatically under a duty to preserve what it knows is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to

Case 5:08-cv-00843-JF Document 15 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER, page 2

the discovery of admissible evidence. See Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc.,

593 F.Supp. 1443, 1455 (D.C. Cal. 1984). Without any allegations demonstrating an immediate

threat of spoilation, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons for proceeding ex parte rather

than by way of a noticed motion. However, because the court liberally construes a pro se Plaintiff’s

claims, the court deems Plaintiffs filing as motion for a protective order to preserve video taped

evidence. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

For the foregoing reasons, It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed ex parte is DENIED;

2. Defendant shall file its opposition on or by April 25, 2008;

3. Plaintiff shall file his reply, if any, on or by May 2, 2008;

4. The motion will be submitted on the papers.

Dated: April 14, 2008

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00843-JF Document 15 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

Copies of order mailed on April 14, 2008 to the following:

Cleophas White

820 Willow Street, #148

San Jose, CA 95125

____EHP______________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge

Patricia V. Trumbull

Case 5:08-cv-00843-JF Document 15 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 3