Virgin Scent, Inc. v. BT Supplies West, Inc., et al

Filing 150

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT'S SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties' counsel are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to timely cooperate in the filing of pretrial documents that were due on 7/26/2022. Plaintiff's counsel's recent appearance in the case is no excuse for failure to timely comply with this Court's 3/11/2021 Scheduling and Case Management Order and the Local Rules or, at least, to seek leave of court for an extension of time. Counsel's written responses shall be filed by no later than 8/5/2022. The filing of joint pretrial documents compliant with the CMO by that date shall be deemed a satisfactory response. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-184-DMG (ASx)

Date

Title Virgin Scent, Inc. v. BT Supplies West, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable

July 28, 2022
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT’S SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
On March 11, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management Order
(“CMO”) that requires, among other things, the parties to file certain joint pretrial submissions.
[Doc. # 15.] Apparently because the parties were unable to agree about any of the pretrial
submissions, on July 26, 2022, the parties both filed unilateral submissions. [Doc. ## 136-141,
147-148.] Absent jointly submitted pretrial documents compliant with the CMO, this case is not
trial ready.
Given the foregoing, the parties’ counsel are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to timely cooperate in the filing of pretrial
documents that were due on July 26, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel’s recent appearance in the case is
no excuse for failure to timely comply with this Court’s CMO and the Local Rules or, at least, to
seek leave of court for an extension of time. Counsel’s written responses shall be filed by no
later than August 5, 2022. The filing of joint pretrial documents compliant with the CMO by
that date shall be deemed a satisfactory response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT