Danea Burleson vs Bay Area Ketamine Center, Inc. et al

Calendar Line 13 Danea Burleson vs Bay Area Ketamine Center, Inc. et al.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a former patient and former employee of Defendant, moves for a protective order restricting Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, and further seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, and 2023.030. Defendant, in propria persona, opposes and argues the motion is procedurally improper and must proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 is misplaced. That statute governs standalone civil harassment restraining order proceedings and is not a prerequisite to issuance of a case-management protective order within pending civil litigation. The Court has broad authority to control proceedings and regulate litigant conduct under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, subdivision (a)(3) and (a)(5), and 187, as well as authority to issue protective orders to prevent harassment, annoyance, and undue burden, including under section 2017.020 where appropriate. Defendant’s procedural objection is therefore overruled.

ANALYSIS

The Court finds good cause for a narrowly tailored protective order. The record reflects ongoing direct communications from Defendant to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s representation by counsel, including communications that are not necessary to the litigation and are reasonably characterized as harassing or inappropriate in tone. The Court finds that restrictions on direct party-to-party contact are necessary to preserve orderly litigation and protect Plaintiff from improper contact.

The Court further finds it appropriate to regulate Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff’s counsel to the extent such communications occur, limiting them to those expressly permitted by law or court order and requiring that any such communications be professional and limited to legitimate litigation matters.

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, and 2023.030 is denied without prejudice. While the Court does not impose sanctions at this time, the Court expressly admonishes Defendant that the conduct at issue is improper; future violations may result in sanctions or other corrective orders.