Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04961/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04961-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOHERTY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA and CITY OF

ALAMEDA HOUSING AND BUILDING

CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD,

Defendants. /

No. 09-4961-EDL

ORDER ALLOWING EX PARTE FILING

OF RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEY’S

MOTION TO FILE ATTORNEY’S LIEN

 Plaintiff’s former attorney, Lee Grant’s Motion to File an Attorney’s Lien came on for hearing

on June 14, 2010 but Mr. Grant failed to appear at the hearing and Plaintiff claimed he had no notice

of the motion. Thereafter, the Court Ordered Mr. Grant to file additional documentation supporting

his motion, and allowed responses from Plaintiff and Defendant. On June 21, Plaintiff filed an

opposition to the motion. On June 21 and June 22, Mr. Grant filed two declarations in violation of

Local ADR Rule 5-12 regarding the confidentiality of discussions that occur during Early Neutral

Evaluation sessions. The Court Ordered both declarations stricken from the public docket and

allowed Mr. Grant until June 25 to properly respond to Plaintiff’s opposition. 

Mr. Grant has informed the Court that he cannot properly respond to Plaintiff’s opposition

without disclosing confidential information that may affect Plaintiff’s case if the Defendants are

allowed to view some of the information necessary to support his position. Mr. Grant requests that

he be allowed to submit the reply ex parte to the Court and Plaintiff because the matter relates solely

to the attorney-client relationship. Counsel for Defendants does not oppose the request. Good cause

appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Grant’s request to submit his reply to his motion to file

an attorney’s lien ex parte. However, the Court notes that the confidentiality requirements of the

Case 3:09-cv-04961-EDL Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ADR Local Rules generally apply even in the context of an ex parte submission, and that the

submission must comply with applicable law regarding the attorney-client privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2010

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04961-EDL Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2