Valve Corporation v. Abbruzzese

W.D. Washington

Valve Corporation v. Abbruzzese

DecidedNovember 8, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-01717

StatusUnknown

This text of Valve Corporation v. Abbruzzese (Valve Corporation v. Abbruzzese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valve Corporation v. Abbruzzese, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 VALVE CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1717-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 9 MOTION v. 10 JENNIFER A. NELSON et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Valve Corporation’s ex parte motion, 14 seeking permission to contact all 624 Respondents in this case outside the presence 15 of their attorney(s). Dkt. No. 12. Respondents have not yet appeared and therefore 16 cannot respond to Valve’s motion. See generally Dkt. 17 “[O]ur entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken 18 before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides 19 of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 20 Loc. No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). “By allowing both sides to have their say, the 21 adversary system promotes accuracy, fairness, and consistency—the hallmarks of 22 our system of justice.” In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989). 23 1 These principles explain why the burden is on ex parte movants to justify “why 9 [they] should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants 3 and receive special treatment.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F.

4 Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 5 Valve has failed to justify why the Court should grant its motion before the

G other side has appeared. This is all the more true here given that the relief

7 requested by Valve is no small matter—it wishes to communicate directly with

8 persons represented by counsel about matters in dispute and to convey options 9 about how they may proceed in pending litigation. The Rules of Professional

19 || Conduct prohibit such communications unless “exceptional circumstances” warrant

11 otherwise. Washington Rules of Professional 4.2, cmt. 6.

12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Valve’s motion with leave to renew. Dkt.

13 No. 12.

14 15 Dated this 8th day of November, 2024.

16 17 Z. g 18 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 VALVE CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1717-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 9 MOTION v. 10 JENNIFER A. NELSON et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Valve Corporation’s ex parte motion, 14 seeking permission to contact all 624 Respondents in this case outside the presence 15 of their attorney(s). Dkt. No. 12. Respondents have not yet appeared and therefore 16 cannot respond to Valve’s motion. See generally Dkt. 17 “[O]ur entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken 18 before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides 19 of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 20 Loc. No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). “By allowing both sides to have their say, the 21 adversary system promotes accuracy, fairness, and consistency—the hallmarks of 22 our system of justice.” In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989). 23 1 These principles explain why the burden is on ex parte movants to justify “why 9 [they] should be allowed to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants 3 and receive special treatment.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F.