Banga v. Kanios
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:16-cv-04270
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Banga v. Kanios, Judge Seeborg denied Banga’s reconsideration motion because it lacked required court permission and a recognized reconsideration basis.
Navjeet Banga and the defendants in the case, including Chris Gus Kanios.
What happened
In Banga v. Kanios, Navjeet Banga asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying his request to cancel a subpoena requiring his trial testimony. The court said the motion was procedurally defective because Banga had not first obtained permission to file it.
Banga argued that he should not have to testify live because doing so would worsen his disability symptoms, and he again requested appointed counsel. The court said he could submit prepared testimony without reading it aloud, while allowing the defendants to question him. It also described Banga’s earlier efforts to obtain counsel, including two referrals and a prior appointment, but said those efforts had not produced trial counsel.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also said Banga had not identified any of the three grounds allowed for reconsideration under the applicable court rule.
The detailed version
- Banga v. Kanios · No. 3:16-cv-04270
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Navjeet Banga moved for reconsideration of an earlier order denying his request to quash, or cancel, a subpoena requiring him to testify at trial. The court noted that Banga was proceeding without a lawyer.
Reasons for Denial
The court identified two defects in the motion. First, Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Banga had not obtained that permission. The court stated that this defect alone required denial.
Second, the court said Banga did not invoke any of the three grounds for reconsideration listed in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Instead, he argued that he should not be required to testify live because testimony would severely aggravate his disability symptoms. The court noted that he had recently represented that he was prepared to proceed to trial despite the difficulties he faced. In a footnote, the court also stated that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to the federal government.
The court explained that Banga could submit prepared testimony into the record without reading it aloud during his part of the trial. If he submitted testimony, the defendants would be entitled to question him under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b).
Banga also again requested appointment of counsel. The court reviewed his prior efforts to obtain representation: a 2018 referral to the Federal Pro Bono Project, an appointment of Legal Aid at Work lawyers who later received permission to withdraw, a second referral in 2019 that did not identify suitable counsel, and additional time granted after Banga said in 2023 that he had found but had not formally retained private counsel. The court concluded that he had been given every opportunity to obtain trial counsel.
Disposition
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not identify a separate ruling granting or denying a new motion to quash or a separate appointment-of-counsel motion; it explains the court’s earlier rulings and the trial procedures that would apply.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.