Banga v. Kanios

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NAVJEET SINGH BANGA, 10 Case No. 16-cv-04270-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION CHRIS GUS KANIOS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff Navjeet Banga has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his 16 request to quash Defendants’ subpoena for his testimony at trial. Banga’s motion is procedurally 17 defective: “[n]o party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of 18 Court to file the motion.” Civil L.R. 7-9(a).1 This error alone necessitates denying the motion. 19 Banga also fails to invoke any of the three bases for reconsideration under Rule 7-9(b). Instead, he 20 argues he should not be required to testify live2 and that in the event he should have to testify, 21 counsel should be appointed. These arguments are addressed below. 22 First, as explained at the pretrial conference, Banga may submit any prepared testimony 23 into the record without reading it aloud during his case-in-chief. If Banga submits testimony, 24 1 This is not the first time Banga has sought reconsideration of an order without following court 25 rules. See Dkt. 490. 26 2 Banga claims requiring him to testify would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). However, it is well-settled Title II of the ADA does not apply to the federal 27 government. See Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing 42 1 Defendants are entitled to cross-examine him. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b). Banga argues—days 2 before trial is set to begin—that “requiring [him] to testify would severely aggravate his disability 3 symptoms, rendering him unable to fully participate in and conduct the bench trial.” Dkt. 559, at 3. 4 He suggests he cannot “testify live,” id., but represented to this Court, just two weeks ago, that he 5 was “prepared to proceed to the scheduled jury trial on February 26, 2024” and “wholly 6 committed to proceeding on that date barring any settlement, regardless of the difficulties Plaintiff 7 faces,” Dkt. 532, at 1, 2. Plaintiff has known for more than a month that he would be proceeding 8 to trial pro se, and that trial would involve, among other things, examining witnesses.3 9 Second, Banga (once again) requests the appointment of counsel to assist him before and 10 during trial. While it is regrettable that Plaintiff will be pro se at trial, he will not be unrepresented 11 for lack of trying. In June 2018, Banga was granted a referral to the Federal Pro Bono Project, and 12 counsel from Legal Aid at Work were appointed to represent him two months later. Counsel were 13 later granted leave to withdraw from their representation of Plaintiff. In October 2019, Banga was 14 granted a second referral to obtain counsel from the Federal Pro Bono Project, but appropriate 15 counsel could not be identified. Finally, in October 2023, Plaintiff represented to the Court that he 16 had located (but not formally retained) private counsel and needed additional time before trial. 17 Banga’s trial, then scheduled for November 13, 2023, was continued to 2024 to give Banga the 18 opportunity to secure effective representation. This attempt to procure counsel for trial eventually 19 proved unsuccessful. In short, Banga has been afforded every opportunity to obtain counsel over 20 the course of this seven-year-long litigation. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: February 21, 2024 25

26 3 Given that this is a bench trial and Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff—within the bounds of 27 court rules—will be afforded some latitude in presenting his case. 1 RICHARD SEEBORG 0 2 Chief United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CASE No. 16-cv-04270-RS