POR Vida Productions LLC et al v. Christopher Harrison et al

Filing 62

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT SANCTION PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL for filing late oppostion brief to defendants motions for summary judgment set for 4/15/2013 10:00 AM by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 4/3/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

POR VIDA PRODUCTIONS, LLC;
DFL RELEASING LLC; ALAN
JACOBS; SCOTT WILLIAM
ALVAREZ,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

CHRISTOPHER HARRISON;
DARRICK ROBINSON; TRINA
CALDERON,

17
Defendants.
18
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-01944 DDP (JCx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT
SHOULD NOT SANCTION PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL

19
20

The Court orders Plaintiffs’ Counsel Eugene R. Grace to show

21

cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a late opposition

22

brief to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”).

23

On Monday, March 18, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion.

24

(Docket No. 53.)

25

their opposition at least 21 days before the Motion’s hearing,

26

which is set for Monday, April 15, 2013.

27

///

28

Local Rule 7-9 required Plaintiffs to submit

Twenty-one days before

1

this date was Monday, March 25.

Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed

2

at 6:02pm on Friday, March 29.

(Docket No. 60; Susman Decl. ¶ 2,

3

Docket No. 61-1.)

4

brief to be filed on Monday April 1, fourteen days before the

5

hearing.

6

he had to prepare a reply brief over the weekend and during a

7

planned family vacation to Hawaii, where he did not have “full

8

access to [his] law firm’s resources. (Susman Decl. ¶ 3.)

9

Defendants’ counsel could not assume that the Court would grant a

10

continuance for this reply brief because such a request would not

11

have been reviewed until April 1 at the earliest, the day that the

12

brief was due.

13

delay.

14

Local Rule 7-10 required Defendants’ reply

Mr. Grace’s delay prejudiced Defendants’ counsel because

Mr. Grace did not explain the opposition brief’s

Local Rule 7-13 provides for sanctions against parties that

15

file late documents: “A party filing any document in support of, or

16

in opposition to, any motion noticed for hearing as above

17

provided after the time for filing the same shall have expired,

18

also shall be subject to the sanctions of L.R. 83-7 and the

19

F.R.Civ.P.”

Local Rule 83-7 also states:

20
21

The violation of or failure to conform to any of these
Local Rules may subject the offending party or counsel
to:
(a) monetary sanctions, if the Court finds that the
conduct was willful, grossly negligent, or reckless;
(b) the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees to
opposing counsel, if the
Court finds that the conduct rises to the level of bad
faith and/or a willful disobedience of a court order;
and/or
(c) for any of the conduct specified in (a) and (b)
above, such other sanctions as the Court may deem
appropriate under the circumstances.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///
2

1

The Court will hear arguments on sanctions on Monday, April

2

15, the same day that argument is set for Defendants’ Motion.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated:April 3, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3