Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00007-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.), et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

On March 31, 2015, the court issued an order granting Parsons Behle & Latimer’s 

motion for clarification. ECF No. 170. In that order the court confirmed General Yeager and 

Victoria Yeager had waived any privilege that would have protected the document introduced as 

Exhibit A at the March 24, 2015 evidentiary hearing, including in the related case, Yeager et al. v. 

Parsons Behle & Latimer, et al., No. 2:14-cv-2544-KJM-DAD. On April 8, 2015, General and 

Ms. Yeager filed an ex parte application requesting the court reconsider that order. ECF Nos. 

172, 173. 

All motions, including for reconsideration, must be noticed and filed in accordance 

with this District’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. 

The standing order allows limited exceptions to that rule for ex parte applications: 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 176 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

The filer is required to contact the courtroom deputy and the 

opposing party prior to the filing of the ex parte application in order 

to advise that such request is being made. In addition, the 

document(s) must indicate whether or not an opposition will be 

filed. The filer shall include an affidavit indicating a satisfactory 

explanation for the following: (1) the need for the issuance of such 

an order, (2) the failure of the filer to obtain a stipulation for the 

issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the 

action, and (3) why such request cannot be noticed on the court's 

motion calendar as provided by Local Rule 230. 

Standing Order 5, ECF No. 55-1. The Yeagers’ application, if a motion, was not filed in 

accordance with the Local Rules. If intended as an ex parte application, its filing did not comply 

with this court’s standing order. The court has overlooked procedural shortcomings in the 

Yeagers’ filings while cautioning that “[p]ro se litigants are held to the same standard as those 

represented by a lawyer.” Order Mar. 5, 2015, at 2, ECF No. 164 (citing E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a)). 

The Yeagers’ future failures to follow local rules and this court’s standing order can be expected 

to face appropriate sanctions, including the striking of noncompliant motions or applications. 

An application for reconsideration must describe “what new or different facts or 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 

or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown 

at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). The Yeagers have described no new or 

different facts or circumstances. They argue only that the “attorney-client privilege is 

sacrosanct”; that Ms. Yeager understood General Yeager’s waiver did not reach any proceedings 

outside the evidentiary hearing; and that the scope of the waiver should be limited in 

consideration of fairness. The court considered these points before issuing its previous order. 

Reconsideration now would lead to no different conclusion. 

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 16, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00007-KJM-DB Document 176 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 2