Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lewis v. Dow Chemical Corporation, 16-cv-06165-YGR. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180302999 Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING LETTER Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 41 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Counsel for the above-named plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases ("Standing Order") regarding Pre-filing Conferences for Summary Judgment Motions. The Court's Standing Order states at Section 9(a): "Within three (3) business day
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING LETTER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 41

Counsel for the above-named plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases ("Standing Order") regarding Pre-filing Conferences for Summary Judgment Motions.

The Court's Standing Order states at Section 9(a): "Within three (3) business days after receipt of the [moving party's] letter, any adversary wishing to oppose the motion must file a written response addressing the substance of the moving party's letter, with a copy to Chambers and the moving party. This response shall also be limited to three single-spaced pages, including any attached exhibits or supporting papers."

Defendant filed its pre-filing conference letter on February 14, 2018, and offered multiple dates for a pre-filing conference. (Dkt. No. 41.) To date, plaintiff has failed to file a response to that letter.

Further, on February 13, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 40) why the Court should extend the discovery cutoff deadline as requested in plaintiff's portion of the parties' joint discovery letter brief (Dkt. No. 39). Pursuant to the Court's order, plaintiff was to file a statement responding to the order no later than Tuesday, February 20, 2018. As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has failed to file such statement.

In light of the fact that plaintiff has not shown cause to extend the discovery cutoff deadline, plaintiff's request that the Court permit late discovery is DENIED. Accordingly, and additionally, because plaintiff neither sought leave to serve 43 extra interrogatories nor leave to file a motion to compel responses to the same, plaintiff's request regarding its extra interrogatories is DENIED.

A hearing on the Order to Show Cause as to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Standing Order shall be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, at 9:01 a.m., in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1 to determine whether sanctions should be issued and the nature of such sanctions. Counsel must file a written response to this Order to Show Cause no later than Monday, March 5, 2018. Failure to do so will be deemed an admission that no good cause exists for plaintiff's failures and that the imposition of monetary sanctions is appropriate, in which case plaintiff's counsel shall pay $200.00 to the Clerk of Court, and defendant will be authorized to file its summary judgment motion without the need for a pre-filing conference.

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 39.

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