Filed: Apr. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2017
Summary: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , District Judge . Defendants respectfully request leave to reply to Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause ("OSC"). See ECF Nos. 224, 234. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's multiple orders requiring him to attend his deposition on March 22, 2017, in San Francisco, California; a Court-ordered in-person meet-and-confer on March 23, 2
Summary: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , District Judge . Defendants respectfully request leave to reply to Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause ("OSC"). See ECF Nos. 224, 234. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's multiple orders requiring him to attend his deposition on March 22, 2017, in San Francisco, California; a Court-ordered in-person meet-and-confer on March 23, 20..
More
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, District Judge.
Defendants respectfully request leave to reply to Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause ("OSC"). See ECF Nos. 224, 234. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's multiple orders requiring him to attend his deposition on March 22, 2017, in San Francisco, California; a Court-ordered in-person meet-and-confer on March 23, 2017; and a hearing on his Motion to Stay Proceedings on March 23, 2017. ECF Nos. 230, 210, 220. Additionally, the OSC noted that Plaintiff has failed to comply with his Rule 26 obligations and the Court's March 9, 2017 Order because he has not provided Defendants with documents related to his damages. ECF Nos. 203, 213, 216; see ECF Nos. 194 ¶¶ 1-2, 203 ¶ 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). The Court further stated that sanctions may include, but not limited to, monetary penalties, striking Plaintiff's request for damages, or dismissing his claims.
At the hearing on March 23, 2017, Defendants suggested that the Court consider limiting Plaintiff's damages at trial as a remedial measure for his noncompliance with Court orders. The Court declined to decide the issue at the time and indicated that Defendants would have an opportunity to respond to the OSC too.
After the Court granted Plaintiff's request for a 7-day extension, he filed his response to the OSC on April 6, 2017. ECF Nos. 229, 234. Defendants request leave to reply to Plaintiff's response so that we may address several issues. More specifically, a reply by Defendants is necessary to clarify their position regarding the propriety of sanctions and to address Plaintiff's arguments regarding his failure to comply with the rules and Court orders. Defendants contacted Plaintiff on April 10, 2017, for his position on this request for leave to file a reply, and he indicated that he opposed the motion.
Defendants hereby attach their reply to Plaintiff's response to the OSC as Exhibit 1.
Defendants' Motion For Leave to File Defendants' Washington, DC 20044 Reply to Plaintiff's response to OSC is GRANTED.
