Duhn Oil Tool Inc v. Cooper Cameron Corporation

Filing 382

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE; ORDER Re Ex Parte Application 381 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/24/2009. Show Cause Hearing set for 1/13/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GSA) before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. (Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DUHN OIL TOOL, INC., 11 12 13 14 15 16 AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Notably, the Court was willing to accommodate the request of Mr. Rogers by hearing the motion on W e d n e s d a y , January 13, 2010, rather than its regular Friday law and motion calendar as Mr. Rogers advised he w o u ld otherwise be required to forego a certain college bowl game on Friday, January 8, 2010.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:05-cv-01411 OWW GSA ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION (Document 381)

Plaintiff, v. COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION, Defendant.

On December 4, 2009, the parties appeared before this Court for a status conference regarding Defendant's motion to compel discovery. On that date, the parties were advised that in the event they could not resolve their discovery dispute, a hearing on the motion would be entertained on January 13, 2010;1 the parties were to contact the clerk for a time. More importantly, the parties were advised that a joint statement, if submitted, was not to exceed twenty-five pages in length. It was ordered to be filed no later than December 23, 2009. (See Doc. 372.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The parties did not file a joint statement on December 23, 2009, as ordered. Thus, the motion to compel will not be heard on January 13, 2010. On December 24, 2009, counsel for Defendant filed an ex parte application for an extension of time to file the joint statement; the application also seeks permission to exceed the twenty-five page limit. (Doc. 381.) Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for attorney misconduct and such sanctions include an award of attorney's fees, against attorneys and parties for "bad faith" conduct or "willful disobedience" of a court order. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 4546, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2133 (1991). Moreover, a district court has inherent power to "impose sanctions for discovery abuses that may not be a technical violation of the discovery rules." Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Engineering & Mfg., 982 F.2d 363, 368, n.2 (9th Cir. 1992); Halaco Eng'g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988). The parties are ORDERED to personally appear at the hearing on this Order scheduled for Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 10 of this Court, to show cause, if any, why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to obey a court order. FURTHER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the ex parte application is DENIED for Defendant has not shown good cause regarding the parties' failure to file a timely joint statement, nor has good cause been shown to exceed the previously-imposed twenty-five page limit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

December 24, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2