Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JOHNSON v. PATEL, 2:14-cv-2078 WBS AC. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150921922 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions (ECF No. 26), is currently scheduled to be heard on September 23, 2015. The Local Rules of this court required defendants to file a response to the motion no later than September 16, 2015. E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 251(e). In violation of the applicable Local Rule, defendants, who are represented by counsel, have not filed anything in response to plaintiff's motion. In addition, on February 26, 20
More

ORDER

Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions (ECF No. 26), is currently scheduled to be heard on September 23, 2015. The Local Rules of this court required defendants to file a response to the motion no later than September 16, 2015. E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 251(e). In violation of the applicable Local Rule, defendants, who are represented by counsel, have not filed anything in response to plaintiff's motion.

In addition, on February 26, 2015, the district judge presiding over this case ordered the parties to "contact the assigned magistrate judge's courtroom deputy no later than April 17, 2015, by phone or email to schedule an early settlement conference." ECF No. 18. At the time of this order, both parties were represented by counsel, yet it appears that the parties failed to comply with this order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 23, 2015 hearing date is CONFIRMED. Counsel shall be prepared to discuss the propriety of the Joint Stipulation process they have adopted in multiple cases (see, e.g., ECF No. 23), even though (1) it appears that plaintiff is using it to short-circuit the normal Motion To Compel procedures for compelling discovery from a non-responsive party, and (2) defendants' counsel repeatedly fails to comply with the stipulation even after it has been "So Ordered" by the court.

2. Counsel for defendants (Michael David Welch, Esq., of Michael Welch Associates), is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in person on September 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., why he should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Local Rule;

3. Counsel for plaintiff (Raymond G. Ballister, Jr., Esq., Mark Potter, Esq., or Phyl Grace, Esq., of CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS), and counsel for defendants, are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in person on September 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., why they should not be sanctioned for, as it appears, failing to comply with the court's order of February 26, 2015.

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