JOE B. BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge
A hearing was held concerning motions to disqualify in this matter on July 2, 2001. During the course of the hearing it appeared that certain documents would need to be filed with the Court to complete the record. Such documents should be filed by close of business July 5, 2001. The memorandum prepared by Ms. Martin shall be filed under seal with the Court and copies will not be furnished any other party absent Court order.
At the beginning of the hearing the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that, after being assigned this case, he had determined that various Disney companies were defendants, and the Magistrate Judge had sold shares of Walt Disney stock that he owned as soon as he ascertained that Disney was a defendant.
Likewise, upon receiving motions for disqualification of counsel for Time Warner defendants, the Magistrate Judge learned that Time Warner had merged with AOL in January, 2001, and inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge owned shares of AOL he has sold those shares prior to taking any action on motions to disqualify involving Time Warner.
In reviewing the docket entries for this case, it appears that one defendant has filed a corporate disclosure statement as required by Local Rule 8(a)(3) (Docket Entry No. 118).
It does not appear that any other corporate defendant has filed the required corporate disclosure statement. The corporate disclosures statement is due as a separate document with the initial pleading of the parties filed with the Court and must be supplemented as required. In accordance with the Local Rule, any non-governmental corporate party shall file a corporate disclosure statement on or before July 13, 2001. If a corporate defendant does not have a parent corporation or none of its stock is held by a company owning more than ten percent of the corporation's stock, they shall file a document so stating.
The Clerk is directed to re-run a conflicts check with the Magistrate Judge's stock holdings following receipt of the corporate disclosure forms. While the Magistrate Judge knows of no conflict at the present time, should any conflict appear the Magistrate Judge intends to resolve the matter by selling any conflicting stock.
The Magistrate Judge has received certain correspondence from the parties. Because or the size of this case, the Magistrate Judge believes that the practice of writing the Court with a copy to counsel of record may lead to difficulties. Such correspondence, given the size of the case, may become difficult to locate since it will not be docketed as such.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to docket the letter from plaintiffs' counsel dated June 28, 2001, regarding discovery requests as a Notice to Counsel re: Discovery Requests, and the letter from the plaintiffs' counsel dated June 29, 2001, regarding Rule 26 conferences as a Notice to Counsel re: Rule 26 Conferences, and assign them the next docket entry numbers.
In the future, rather than sending a letter to the Court with a copy to counsel to the extent this is necessary, such correspondence should be filed with the Clerk a Notice to Counsel Re: _____________ so that it may be entered with an appropriate docket number and accessible to all parties.
The Clerk is directed to serve this Order on (1) the parties that are bringing or opposing the subject motion ruled upon; and (2) as provided in the Order (Docket Entry No. 2) entered May 8, 2001. This is so the Clerk personally serves the directly affected parties and that all other parties are served by the Clerk via the plaintiff in accordance with the procedure set out in the Order (Docket Entry No. 2).
It is so ORDERED.