Ewing v. Aliera Healthcare, 3:19-cv-00845

Plaintiff (pro se Anton Ewing) records all telephone calls with defense counsel and has informed counsel calls will be recorded and that counsel are blocked from emailing him.
Defendant (Aliera Healthcare) sought an ex parte order: (1) bar Plaintiff from recording calls with defense counsel; (2) order Plaintiff to stop blocking defense counsel’s emails; (3) relieve meet-and-confer obligations per Judge Lopez’s chambers rules; and (4) instruct compliance with Local Rule 83.4 (Professionalism).
The parties discussed these issues at a Case Management Conference before Judge Lopez but did not resolve them; Judge Lopez indicated a written motion could be filed.
Plaintiff argued California law permits one-party recording for cell-phone calls with disclosure and that the communications at issue were not "confidential." He also argued the Court and parties use U.S. Mail and thus email is unnecessary.
Defendant argued recordings violate Cal. Penal Code § 632 because communications with counsel are confidential and that email is a reasonable, common method for litigation communications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion should be stricken for procedural defects	Motion should be stricken because exhibits may not have been served	Motion is proper; Plaintiff should have the exhibits	Denied; motion not stricken
Whether to relieve meet-and-confer obligation under Judge Lopez’s rules	Motion seeks relief beyond ENE	Issues were raised at CMC; Judge Lopez permitted filing a motion	Granted; meet-and-confer obligation relieved for this motion
Whether Plaintiff may record telephone conversations with defense counsel (Cal. Penal Code § 632)	Recordings are lawful with one-party consent/disclosure; conversations not confidential	Recording without all-party consent violates § 632 because counsel reasonably expects confidentiality	Granted for Defendant; Plaintiff ordered to stop recording counsel moving forward
Whether Plaintiff must unblock defense counsel’s email	Court and parties use U.S. Mail; email not required	Email is a common, efficient means to communicate in litigation; blocking is improper	Granted for Defendant; Plaintiff ordered to unblock counsel’s emails by Aug 16, 2019

Weiner v. ARS Nat'l Servs., Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (elements required to plead a § 632 claim)
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2002) (defining elements of illegal recording under California law)
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (recording conversations between counsel without consent violates § 632 and is improper tactic)