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 

**E-filed 05/24/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Ex rel. Robert Finney and Jacquelyn Finney, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-2411 RS 

ORDER RESCHEDULING STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND DENYING 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF RECUSAL AND APPOINTMENT 

OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR 

Relators Robert and Jacquelyn Finney have filed a motion seeking various forms of relief. 

Although the motion has not been noticed for hearing as required by Civil Local Rule 7, the Court 

will address it at this juncture in the interests of justice. 1

 Good cause appearing, the status 

conference in this matter is hereby continued to June 24, 2010. The status conference shall be held 

telephonically. All parties must contact Court Conference at 866/582-6878 prior to the status 

conference to make an appearance. The Court Conference fee shall be waived for pro se Relators 

Robert and Jacquelyn Finney. In the event the date and time of the rescheduled status conference 

present difficulties for Relators, they may submit a letter suggesting specific dates and times that are 

 

1

 Relators are directed to the Court’s “Handbook For Litigants Without a Lawyer,” available in the 

Clerk’s office or at www.cand.uscourts.gov for guidance on filing any future motions. 

Case 3:08-cv-02411-RS Document 42 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

feasible for them. Relators’ request for an order extending the time in which they must serve the 

complaint will be taken up at the status conference. 

Relators’ request for reconsideration of the denial of their request for recusal of the 

undersigned is denied. Although their argument is not entirely clear, Relators appear to argue that 

recusal is warranted because the Court has not held an “evidentiary hearing” to inquire into certain 

allegations they have made. Until their present filing, Relators never moved for an “evidentiary 

hearing,” but even if they had, their disagreement with a Court ruling is not a basis for recusal. To 

the extent that the request for recusal continues to be based on the undersigned’s former association 

with the law firm of Morrison & Forrester, Relators’ speculation that there “may” be a “sufficiently 

close connection” is unwarranted. 

Relators’ request for appointment of a “special investigator” is denied. Relators contend that 

wrongdoing has occurred both within this action and with respect to visits to a website they 

maintain. As to the conduct of this action, the Court has previously explained that as a result of 

administrative error, the Electronic Case Filing System continued to show this case as being “under 

seal” when it was not, and showed Relators as represented by counsel when they were not.2

 It 

appears that as a result, Relators were not always served with documents in this action when they 

should have been. There is no indication, however, of any intentional wrongdoing in this regard, 

either by the Government or by Court personnel. Relators’ most adamant complaint is that they 

were not served with the Government’s response to a motion they made in October of 2009.3 

Although it appears to be a moot point now, the Government has certified that it served a copy of 

that response on Relators on May 21, 2010. While it is unfortunate that the document was not 

 

2

 As Relators point out, the Court’s calendar still titled this case as “Under Seal v. Under Seal” 

until this date. That, however, was merely the result of the fact that it was put on calendar before 

the confusion about the sealing status was cleared up, and it was not updated thereafter. Relators’ 

suggestion that something nefarious is going on is unfounded. 

3

 Relators assert that the response is not entered in the docket and “may not exist.” Relators are 

mistaken. The document appears at docket no. 26. 

Case 3:08-cv-02411-RS Document 42 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

timely served, it does not appear that events would have unfolded differently had Relators received 

the document at an earlier juncture.4

Relators contend that their website has been visited by employees of Morrison & Forrester 

and the Justice Department. Although Relators characterize this as “illegal electronic surveillance,” 

they have not explained how it would be improper or illegal for anyone to visit a website that 

Relators voluntarily make available to the general public to access.5

 In any event, Relators have not 

shown that appointment of a “special investigator” is warranted or that an “evidentiary hearing” 

should be held at this juncture. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

4

 Relators express a concern that the Court’s certificate of service of its March 23, 2010 only 

shows service on them, and not on the Government. Counsel for the Government is a registered efiler in this action, and therefore receives service through the ECF system as documented by the 

ECF receipt. The certificate of service is used to document the sending of hard copies to persons, 

such as Relators, who do not receive electronic notice. 

5

 Relators have not suggested there was any “hacking” or access to some portion of their computer 

system not made available to the public to view. 

05/24/2010

Case 3:08-cv-02411-RS Document 42 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS CLERK’S NOTICE WAS 

MAILED TO: 

Robert Finney 

Jacquelyn Finney 

1664 Buttercup Road 

Encinitas, CA 92024 

DATED: 05/24/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not 

registered with the Court’s electronic filing system. 

 

Case 3:08-cv-02411-RS Document 42 Filed 05/24/10 Page 4 of 4