Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02887/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02887-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 9/10/2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL 

CHRISTOPHER KAES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOGWOOD CREEK CONSTRUCTION, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-02887-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HOLD 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN 

CAMERA

Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 22

The United States declined to intervene in this case on March 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 15. 

Plaintiffs Kaes Enterprises, LLC and Christopher Kaes did not serve any defendants or consent to 

magistrate jurisdiction during the following five months. The court set a status conference for 

September 15, 2015 and ordered submission of a status report by September 10, 2015. Dkt. No. 

18. 

Plaintiffs consented to magistrate jurisdiction and filed a motion to allow their lawyers to 

appear by telephone at the status conference. Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. Plaintiffs also filed a declaration 

by lawyer Bruce P. Babbitt in support of the motion to appear by telephone; this declaration 

includes a request to hold the status conference in camera and to seal records of the conference

“for reasons that will be explained at the status conference.” Dkt. No. 21. Finally, Plaintiffs filed 

a status report, which requests that the court stay further proceedings until November 1, 2015. 

Dkt. No. 22. Mr. Kaes requests the stay because of medical issues, uncertainty about whether he 

has the “resources and ability” to prosecute the case, and a desire to “hopefully obtain some of the 

investigation materials generated by the United States and the Office of the Inspector General 

Case 5:12-cv-02887-HRL Document 23 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

during their investigation” of this case. Dkt. No. 22.

The court construes the request to hold the conference in camera and the request to stay as 

motions; the court now resolves the three motions before the court.

Motion to Hold In-Camera Conference and Seal Records of Conference

Plaintiffs declined to state any justification for holding the status conference in camera and 

then sealing the record of the conference. Plaintiffs instead base their request entirely on “reasons 

that will be explained at the status conference.” Dkt. No. 21. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request 

because Plaintiffs have not provided any fact or law to justify it.

Motion to Appear by Telephone

The motion to appear by telephone does not clearly state why good cause might exist to 

permit a telephonic appearance. Still, the court notes that pro-hac-vice lead counsel Bruce P. 

Babbitt would likely need to travel from Seattle, Washington to San Jose, California to appear in 

person. The court finds good cause to permit Mr. Babbitt to appear by telephone. The court finds 

no good cause, however, to permit local co-counsel Weldon S. Wood to appear by telephone.

Motion to Stay Further Proceedings

Courts have discretion to stay proceedings to prevent “substantial hardship or inequity 

which a party may suffer” without the stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 

1962). The party that requests a stay has the burden to show the necessity of the stay. Clinton v. 

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Mr. Kaes has asked the court to stay further proceedings, in 

essence, so he can evaluate whether he has the wherewithal to prosecute this case. As well, Mr. 

Kaes hopes the United States will eventually provide him with information helpful to his claims. 

The court finds Mr. Kaes would not suffer substantial hardship or inequity in the absence of a stay

because he has already had more than five months to decide whether to prosecute this case and to 

request information from the United States.

Conclusion

The court therefore denies the request to hold the status conference in camera and seal 

records of the conference, grants Bruce P. Babbitt leave to appear at the status conference by 

telephone, denies Weldon S. Wood leave to appear at the status conference by telephone, and 

Case 5:12-cv-02887-HRL Document 23 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

denies the motion to stay further proceedings. The status conference remains scheduled for 

September 15, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/10/2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02887-HRL Document 23 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3