Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miller v. United Air Lines, Inc., 15-cv-00457-VC (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180315a85 Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' REPLY DEADLINE Re: Dkt. Nos. 328-334 Re: Dkt. Nos. 328-332 Re: Dkt. Nos. 334-341 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The plaintiffs' counsel, Karen Ford, is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for improperly and belatedly filing opposition briefs to the defendants' motions for summary judgment. At the case management conference on October 10, 2017, after the plaintiffs had retained Ford as counsel, the Court set the last
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' REPLY DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 328-334

Re: Dkt. Nos. 328-332

Re: Dkt. Nos. 334-341

The plaintiffs' counsel, Karen Ford, is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for improperly and belatedly filing opposition briefs to the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

At the case management conference on October 10, 2017, after the plaintiffs had retained Ford as counsel, the Court set the last day to hear dispositive motions for March 1, 2018. Trial was set for May 21, 2018. As both sides are aware, this was far from the first time the Court had set summary judgment or trial dates since the operative complaints were filed. The defendants filed their summary judgment briefs according to this schedule, albeit with slight delays.

On February 5, 2018, in response to both sides' requests for extensions of time, the Court continued the deadline for the plaintiffs' opposition briefs by more than one month, to March 9, 2018. The trial date was continued to June 18, 2018. Nevertheless, three days before the opposition briefs were due, Ford filed requests for additional extensions of time to file the opposition briefs. In light of the extensions that had already been granted, these requests were denied. Nevertheless, Ford failed to file the opposition briefs on March 9, and instead, filed the opposition briefs in the form of several different docket entries, several entirely under seal and in the form of "errata," between March 10 and 11. Through the "errata" filings, Ford sought to update the initially filed opposition briefs, add missing exhibits, and make other changes to the papers.

In light of the approach taken to filing these opposition briefs, Ford is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the Court's inherent authority. Ford must file a written response to this order by March 21, 2018.

In addition, Ford must refile complete and accurate oppositions in each case by March 16, 2018. No changes are permitted to the contents of the final submissions on March 10 and 11. Rather, Ford should file each opposition brief as one docket entry on each of the three dockets. Each of the three docket entries should include the relevant declarations and attachments as separate exhibits. In refiling these documents, Ford should take into account what precise information has been designated as confidential, and seal only those portions of the papers that may be sealed pursuant to Ninth Circuit case law, Civil Local Rule 79-5, and this Court's Civil Standing Order. Failure to adequately refile these documents or file appropriately narrowly sealed documents will result in sanctions.

Given the circumstances, the defendants will be permitted two additional days to file their reply briefs, which will now be due March 22, 2018. No requests for further extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer