1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-05161-TSH
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR 9 v. SANCTIONS
10 THE CITY OF HERCULES, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 66 11 Defendants.
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Pending before the Court are two motions for sanctions brought by Plaintiff Anthony 15 McGee. ECF Nos. 38, 66. Defendants City of Hercules and Hercules Police Department (“HPD”) 16 filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s first Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 46) and Plaintiff filed a 17 Reply (ECF No. 57). The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument. 18 See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for 19 sanctions. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. First Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 38) 22 1. Requests for Judicial Notice 23 Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of two documents filed in United States 24 v. McGee, No. 3:12-cr-52-EMC (N.D. Cal.), a criminal case in which Mr. McGee is the defendant. 25 ECF Nos. 37 (Req. for Judicial Notice), 38 (Mot.); see United States v. McGee, No. 3:12-cr-52- 26 EMC (N.D. Cal.). 27 First, Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of all or part of his opposition to the 1 No. 3:12-cr-00052-EMC-1, ECF No. 255 (Mr. McGee’s Opp’n to Mot. to Revoke Supervised 2 Release). The Court declines to take judicial notice of this document. Plaintiff submits 3 photographs of two pages from this filing, which is eighteen pages. It is not clear whether 4 Plaintiff intends that the Court take judicial notice of the entire filing or merely of the 5 photographed pages attached to his request for judicial notice. Moreover, although Plaintiff’s 6 opposition to the Government’s Motion to Revoke Supervised Release was publicly filed, it is a 7 piece of argumentative writing whose contents are by their very nature subject to reasonable 8 dispute. Plaintiff provides no other basis for the Court to consider this document. Accordingly, 9 the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Revoke 10 Supervised Release in deciding the instant motion. 11 Second, Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of his Status Conference 12 Memorandum dated August 28, 2023 in United States v. McGee. ECF No. 38 at 6–9 (page 13 numbers refer to ECF header); No. 3:12-cr-00052-EMC-1, ECF No. 259 (Mr. McGee’s Status 14 Conference Memorandum). Like Mr. McGee’s opposition to the government’s motion to revoke 15 supervised release, Mr. McGee’s Status Conference Memorandum argues that the Court should 16 not modify Mr. McGee’s conditions of supervised release; its contents are subject to reasonable 17 dispute. Accordingly, the Court declines to take judicial notice of Mr. McGee’s status conference 18 memorandum. 19 Plaintiff further asks the Court to take judicial notice of (1) a minute order dated July 5, 20 2023 in The People of the State of California vs. Antoine McGee, No. 22-CR-003382 (Alameda 21 Cnty. Sup. Ct.), a criminal action brought against Mr. McGee in Alameda County Superior Court; 22 (2) a state court minute order dated August 21, 2023 in another criminal matter in which Mr. 23 McGee is the defendant;1 and (3) a letter from a police assistant of the Milpitas Police Department 24 dated May 8, 2023, certifying that the Milpitas Police Department’s taking into custody of Mr. 25 McGee on March 6, 2023 “was a detention only, not an arrest.” ECF No. 38 at 2, 3, 5. Although 26 1 Mr. McGee provides no description of this document, but the document includes an ECF header 27 identifying it as an attachment to the August 28, 2023 status conference memorandum Mr. McGee 1 Plaintiff describes these documents as having previously been filed in United States v. McGee, No. 2 3:12-cr-00052-EMC (ECF No. 38 at 1), Plaintiff does not identify or describe any of these 3 documents, nor does he provide a declaration confirming that each document is what it purports to 4 be. See generally ECF No. 38. Because these documents have not been sufficiently authenticated, 5 the Court is unable to determine whether judicial notice is proper. Accordingly, the Court declines 6 to take judicial notice of these documents. 7 2. Merits of First Motion for Sanctions 8 In Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, Plaintiff asks that “until the case is resolved for the 9 revocation hearing, Plaintiff submits the matter over to this Court for further findings and for 10 consideration of sanctions” against Defense counsel “for unlawful dissemination of juvenile court 11 records in violation of Cal. Wel. & Ins. Code 827.” ECF No. 38 at 1. 12 Here, Plaintiff provides no argument to explain how Defendants or their counsel violated 13 of Cal. Wel. & Ins. Code 827. Although Plaintiff requests sanctions “for unlawful dissemination 14 of juvenile court records[,]” he fails to explain what Court records are at issue, how Defendants 15 allegedly disclosed these records, to whom, and when. Without any further information, the Court 16 does not have sufficient information to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. See Civ. L.R. 17 7-4(a)(5), requiring that a brief or memorandum filed in support of a motion contain “[a]rgument 18 by the party, citing pertinent authorities.” 19 In his reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ “[c]ounsel is aware of the documents and 20 exhibits it has filed and the nature of the content.” Reply at 1. However, a party seeking sanctions 21 must provide sufficient information to put the party it seeks to sanctions on notice of the precise 22 reasons for sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) (a motion for a court order “must . . . state 23 with particularity the grounds for seeking the order”); Civ. L.R. 7-2(b)(3)-(4). Further, while 24 Defendants’ counsel may be aware of the exhibit or exhibits to which Plaintiff refers, Plaintiff has 25 not provided any information sufficient for the Court to know which filings Plaintiff believes were 26 unlawfully filed. The Court cannot be expected to scour the record in search of a filing that 27 Plaintiff does not identify. Because Plaintiff’s motion does not provide the Court with the 1 for sanctions must be denied. 2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions. 3 B. Second Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 662) 4 On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for sanctions,3 this time against Dale 5 Allen Jr., counsel of record for Defendant. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under the court’s inherent 6 authority and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11(b)(1)–(4). In Plaintiff’s Second Motion 7 for Sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Allen or individuals working under his direction filed on 8 the public docket juvenile case records that are subject to protection under section 827 of the 9 California Welfare and Institutions Code. Second Sanctions Mot. at 2, 3, ECF No. 66. Plaintiff 10 contends that by filing records of Plaintiff’s juvenile history on the public docket, Mr. Allen 11 subjected Plaintiff to the risk of public shame and reputational harm and violated his right to equal 12 protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 7. 13 A district “court has the inherent power to sanction a party or its lawyers if it acts in 14 ‘willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, 15 vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,’ as well as for ‘willful[ ] abuse [of the] judicial 16 processes.’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway 17 Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 23-cv-05161-TSH
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR 9 v. SANCTIONS
10 THE CITY OF HERCULES, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 66 11 Defendants.
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Pending before the Court are two motions for sanctions brought by Plaintiff Anthony 15 McGee. ECF Nos. 38, 66. Defendants City of Hercules and Hercules Police Department (“HPD”) 16 filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s first Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 46) and Plaintiff filed a 17 Reply (ECF No. 57). The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument. 18 See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for 19 sanctions. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. First Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 38) 22 1. Requests for Judicial Notice 23 Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of two documents filed in United States 24 v. McGee, No. 3:12-cr-52-EMC (N.D. Cal.), a criminal case in which Mr. McGee is the defendant. 25 ECF Nos. 37 (Req. for Judicial Notice), 38 (Mot.); see United States v. McGee, No. 3:12-cr-52- 26 EMC (N.D. Cal.). 27 First, Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of all or part of his opposition to the 1 No. 3:12-cr-00052-EMC-1, ECF No. 255 (Mr. McGee’s Opp’n to Mot. to Revoke Supervised 2 Release). The Court declines to take judicial notice of this document. Plaintiff submits 3 photographs of two pages from this filing, which is eighteen pages. It is not clear whether 4 Plaintiff intends that the Court take judicial notice of the entire filing or merely of the 5 photographed pages attached to his request for judicial notice. Moreover, although Plaintiff’s 6 opposition to the Government’s Motion to Revoke Supervised Release was publicly filed, it is a 7 piece of argumentative writing whose contents are by their very nature subject to reasonable 8 dispute. Plaintiff provides no other basis for the Court to consider this document. Accordingly, 9 the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Revoke 10 Supervised Release in deciding the instant motion. 11 Second, Mr. McGee asks the Court to take judicial notice of his Status Conference 12 Memorandum dated August 28, 2023 in United States v. McGee. ECF No. 38 at 6–9 (page 13 numbers refer to ECF header); No. 3:12-cr-00052-EMC-1, ECF No. 259 (Mr. McGee’s Status 14 Conference Memorandum). Like Mr. McGee’s opposition to the government’s motion to revoke 15 supervised release, Mr. McGee’s Status Conference Memorandum argues that the Court should 16 not modify Mr. McGee’s conditions of supervised release; its contents are subject to reasonable 17 dispute. Accordingly, the Court declines to take judicial notice of Mr. McGee’s status conference 18 memorandum. 19 Plaintiff further asks the Court to take judicial notice of (1) a minute order dated July 5, 20 2023 in The People of the State of California vs. Antoine McGee, No. 22-CR-003382 (Alameda 21 Cnty. Sup. Ct.), a criminal action brought against Mr. McGee in Alameda County Superior Court; 22 (2) a state court minute order dated August 21, 2023 in another criminal matter in which Mr. 23 McGee is the defendant;1 and (3) a letter from a police assistant of the Milpitas Police Department 24 dated May 8, 2023, certifying that the Milpitas Police Department’s taking into custody of Mr. 25 McGee on March 6, 2023 “was a detention only, not an arrest.” ECF No. 38 at 2, 3, 5. Although 26 1 Mr. McGee provides no description of this document, but the document includes an ECF header 27 identifying it as an attachment to the August 28, 2023 status conference memorandum Mr. McGee 1 Plaintiff describes these documents as having previously been filed in United States v. McGee, No. 2 3:12-cr-00052-EMC (ECF No. 38 at 1), Plaintiff does not identify or describe any of these 3 documents, nor does he provide a declaration confirming that each document is what it purports to 4 be. See generally ECF No. 38. Because these documents have not been sufficiently authenticated, 5 the Court is unable to determine whether judicial notice is proper. Accordingly, the Court declines 6 to take judicial notice of these documents. 7 2. Merits of First Motion for Sanctions 8 In Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, Plaintiff asks that “until the case is resolved for the 9 revocation hearing, Plaintiff submits the matter over to this Court for further findings and for 10 consideration of sanctions” against Defense counsel “for unlawful dissemination of juvenile court 11 records in violation of Cal. Wel. & Ins. Code 827.” ECF No. 38 at 1. 12 Here, Plaintiff provides no argument to explain how Defendants or their counsel violated 13 of Cal. Wel. & Ins. Code 827. Although Plaintiff requests sanctions “for unlawful dissemination 14 of juvenile court records[,]” he fails to explain what Court records are at issue, how Defendants 15 allegedly disclosed these records, to whom, and when. Without any further information, the Court 16 does not have sufficient information to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. See Civ. L.R. 17 7-4(a)(5), requiring that a brief or memorandum filed in support of a motion contain “[a]rgument 18 by the party, citing pertinent authorities.” 19 In his reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ “[c]ounsel is aware of the documents and 20 exhibits it has filed and the nature of the content.” Reply at 1. However, a party seeking sanctions 21 must provide sufficient information to put the party it seeks to sanctions on notice of the precise 22 reasons for sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) (a motion for a court order “must . . . state 23 with particularity the grounds for seeking the order”); Civ. L.R. 7-2(b)(3)-(4). Further, while 24 Defendants’ counsel may be aware of the exhibit or exhibits to which Plaintiff refers, Plaintiff has 25 not provided any information sufficient for the Court to know which filings Plaintiff believes were 26 unlawfully filed. The Court cannot be expected to scour the record in search of a filing that 27 Plaintiff does not identify. Because Plaintiff’s motion does not provide the Court with the 1 for sanctions must be denied. 2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions. 3 B. Second Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 662) 4 On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for sanctions,3 this time against Dale 5 Allen Jr., counsel of record for Defendant. Plaintiff seeks sanctions under the court’s inherent 6 authority and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11(b)(1)–(4). In Plaintiff’s Second Motion 7 for Sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Allen or individuals working under his direction filed on 8 the public docket juvenile case records that are subject to protection under section 827 of the 9 California Welfare and Institutions Code. Second Sanctions Mot. at 2, 3, ECF No. 66. Plaintiff 10 contends that by filing records of Plaintiff’s juvenile history on the public docket, Mr. Allen 11 subjected Plaintiff to the risk of public shame and reputational harm and violated his right to equal 12 protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 7. 13 A district “court has the inherent power to sanction a party or its lawyers if it acts in 14 ‘willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, 15 vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,’ as well as for ‘willful[ ] abuse [of the] judicial 16 processes.’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway 17 Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)). “[T]he district court may not sanction mere 18 ‘inadvertent’ conduct.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001). Rather, the imposition 19 of sanctions under the court’s inherent powers requires “a finding of bad faith, or conduct 20 tantamount to bad faith.” Vernon, 255 F.3d at 1134. “[R]ecklessness, of itself, does not justify the 21 imposition of sanctions” under the Court’s inherent power. Id. However, “sanctions are available 22 when recklessness is ‘combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an 23 improper purpose.’” Id. (quoting Fink, 239 F.3d at 994). 24 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes upon attorneys a duty to certify 25 that they have read any pleadings or motions they file with the court and that such 26 2 A duplicate notice of motion, motion, and some of the corresponding exhibits were also filed at 27 ECF No. 67. 1 pleadings/motions are well-grounded in fact, have a colorable basis in law, and are not filed for an 2 improper purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enterprises, 3 Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991). Frivolous filings, or filings made for improper purpose, 4 undermine this certification. Est. of Blue v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 5 1997); Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1990). Frivolous 6 filings are both (1) objectively legally or factually baseless; and (2) made without a reasonable and 7 competent inquiry. Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002); Buster v. 8 Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended on denial of reh'g (Mar. 26, 1997). 9 Similarly, whether a filing is made for an improper purpose is judged objectively. Townsend, 929 10 F.2d at 1362. If an attorney violates Rule 11(b), courts may impose appropriate sanctions under 11 Rule 11(c)(1). Sanctions do not require a finding of bad faith, but under Rule 11(c)(4) they are 12 limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the sanctioned conduct. 13 “Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” 14 Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, in 15 determining whether Rule 11 has been violated, a “court must consider factual questions regarding 16 the nature of the attorney's pre-filing inquiry and the factual basis of the pleading.” Cooter & Gell 17 v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 399 (1990). However, courts should “avoid using the wisdom 18 of hindsight and should test the signer’s conduct by inquiring what was reasonable to believe at 19 the time the pleading, motion, or other paper was submitted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory Comm. 20 Notes (1983 Amendment). “[T]he imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the 21 merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue: whether the attorney 22 has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate.” Cooter, 496 U.S. 23 at 396. 24 A party moving for sanctions under Rule 11 must do so separately from any other motion 25 and may not present a motion for sanctions to the court until 21 days after service of the motion on 26 the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). This twenty-one-day, “safe harbor” provision allows 27 the non-moving party opportunity to withdraw or correct any alleged deficiencies before sanctions 1 paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days 2 after service....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, advisory committee's notes to 1993 amendments (“Comm. 3 Notes”) (“Explicit provision is made for litigants to be provided notice of the alleged violation and 4 an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed.”). A court may award to the prevailing 5 party the “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff does not provide a declaration, proof of service, or any other evidence that he 7 has complied with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11. 8 Plaintiff contends that Mr. Allen’s conduct violates Rule 11 because: (1) Mr. Allen is 9 attempting to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s juvenile record for an improper purpose, (2) Mr. 10 Allen lacks a nonfrivolous basis to use Plaintiff’s juvenile records without prior court approval, (3) 11 Mr. Allen’s factual contentions lack evidentiary support “due to the destroyed or sealed nature of 12 the records,” and (4) any denials or defenses based on Plaintiff’s juvenile records are not 13 reasonably based on a valid evidentiary foundation. ECF No. 66 at 7. 14 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s sanctions motion does not provide an adequate basis for the 15 Court to impose sanctions under the Court’s inherent power or Rule 11. However, the Court finds 16 Plaintiff’s sanctions motions provides a basis for the Court to seal juvenile case records that were 17 publicly filed in this litigation. “Juvenile records are confidential under California state law.” 18 Aranda v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. 19-cv-01770-RGK-RAO, 2019 WL 11838767, at *4 (C.D. 19 Cal. Dec. 6, 2019); see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827. Courts in this district have therefore issued 20 protective orders or granted motions to the seal records that are subject to California Welfare & 21 Institutions Code § 827. See, e.g., Sarmiento v. Marquez, No. 21-cv-06712-PJH, 2022 WL 22 2918906, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2022) (sealing documents protected under § 827); Aranda, 23 2019 WL 11838767, at *4 (finding protective order warranted as to civil litigant’s juvenile records 24 and witness testimony addressing private facts contained in those records). 25 According, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions. The Court 26 ORDERS Plaintiff to file a motion to seal the juvenile records Plaintiff believes were unlawfully 27 disseminated, identifying the specific records by ECF number and, if applicable, page number of 1 I. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions. The 3 Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a motion to seal the juvenile records Plaintiff believes were 4 || unlawfully disseminated, identifying the specific records by ECF number and, if applicable, page 5 number of any such records. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: May 19, 2025 9 TAA. 10 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28