`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-06754-WHA
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE
`APPLICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The pro hac vice application of Attorney Brittany Vacek Ruyak is DENIED for failing to
`comply with Civil Local Rule 11-3. That rule requires an applicant to certify that "he or she is an
`active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest court of
`another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar" (emphasis added). Filling out the
`pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it identifies only the state of bar
`membership — e.g., "the bar of Texas" — is inadequate under the rule because it fails to identify a
`specific court. While the application fee does not need to be paid again, the application cannot be
`processed until a corrected form is submitted.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: May 9, 2023
`
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
