Federal Court Lets State Court Off The Hook With A “Slap On The Wrist” On Latter’s Egregious Discovery Violations

Federal Court Lets State Court Off The Hook With A “Slap On The Wrist” On Latter’s Egregious Discovery Violations

Senior District Judge
Ronald M. Whyte

San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th Floor
280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113

San Jose, September 9, 2015

In the discovery phase of a Federal lawsuit in the United States Court, Northern California District, filed against the Defendant California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara (“Superior Court”), Plaintiff complains of  Defendant Superior Court committing egregious acts of discovery disobedience.

It is ironic that the very institution, the California Superior Court that is supposed to epitomize justice and which compels the rest of the world to follow discovery rules and statutes in cases before them, itself, appears to engage in blatant disregard for Federal Discovery rules and law.

Here, Plaintiff complains that Superior Court engaged in multiple practices of discovery disobedience by failing to serve all parties to the case with its discovery response, failing to engage in the required oral meet and confer, failing to produce required documents, failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery in a good faith and in a straightforward manner, et al.

Defendant Superior Court’s discovery disobedience is even more egregious given its refusal to permit its employees and Judges, in their individual capacity, to be deposed or be subjected to written discovery, raising road blocks like mental process privilege. 

The rest of the world is held accountable for its wrongs, but not employees and Judges of the California Superior Court.

Although the Federal Court grants, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel some written discovery, most of which Plaintiff believes is superficial, it “bails out” the Superior Court from the bulk of the required discovery and sanctions requested against them, essentially letting them off the hook and engaging in what public may perceive to be an RICO act. See attached Court Order, dated September 9, 2015.

The United States District Court Judges at the San Jose Federal Court consists entirely of ex-Superior Court Judges, like Judge Edward Davila, Judge Lucy Koh, Judge Beth Freeman, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, the latter being the assigned judge on this instant case, despite his close association and immediate last employment with the Defendant California Superior Court, in the same Santa Clara County, and despite his open admission that his spouse, Ann Whyte, earns her living provide services to the Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Plaintiff’s 28 U.S.C §455 et al. conflict of interest motion is denied by assigned Judge Whyte, despite admitting to the conflict of interest.The public suspicion of RICO acts between the San Jose Federal Court Judges and the Defendant California Superior Court appears to be intensifying and may result in a public inquiry and a Department of Justice investigation.