Plaintiff appears to have recorded the conversation between the parties, uploaded the recording to YouTube, and included the link to the publicly accessible recording in his reply. Id. This is highly irregular and inappropriate.
“Although a pro se litigant may be entitled to great leeway by the Court . . . that does not excuse him from following basic rules of ethics and civility—or the law.” Fathi v. Saddleback Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 8:20-CV-544-SB, 2020 WL 7315462, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020). “It is inherently unethical for an attorney to record a conversation with another attorney regarding the routine progression of litigation without the other party’s knowledge or consent.” Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “This behavior raises suspicions, injures public confidence in the legal profession (and thereby the legal system), seriously impedes relations between counsel, and exerts a chilling effect on the normal flow of communication between opposing parties.” Nissan, 180 F. Supp. 2d at 1097.
Here, there is no indication that Defendant consented to being recorded, which may have privacy implications. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 632. In addition, Plaintiff may not publicly disclose private conversations between the parties. Plaintiff should also not share the recording with the Court, as the Court is not convinced that “it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1); see also Civ. L.R. 1-4 (“Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.”).Moreover, the running counter on YouTube indicates that there have been over 100 views of this recording. As such, there is a high likelihood that members of the public have already accessed this recording. Not only is Plaintiff’s behavior indicative of bad faith, but it is also appropriate for sanctions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately remove the recording from YouTube, delete copies of this or any recording Plaintiff has retained between Plaintiff and Defendant, and cease any future recording. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in terminating sanctions with prejudice.
