Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 18

ORDER to Plaintiff's Counsel to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions, Up To and Including Dismissal, Should Not Be Issued for Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders and for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute the Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/19/2014. Show Cause Response due by 9/5/2014. Status Conference currently set for 9/22/2014 is VACATED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TREVOR WEEKS,

14
15

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS, UP TO
AND INCLUDING DISMISSAL,SHOULD
NOT BE ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS
AND FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE THE ACTION

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01641 AWI JLT

vs.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.

16
17

This matter was initiated in this Court on October 10, 2013 when Plaintiff filed his

18

complaint for damages alleging that he suffered from unlawful discrimination by Defendant.

19

(Doc. 1) Plaintiff brings his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair

20

Employment and Housing Act and California’s Labor Code. Id.

21

On January 23, 2014, the Court issued its scheduling conference order. (Doc. 11) In it,

22

the Court ordered the parties to exchange their initial disclosures no later than February 14, 2014.

23

Id. at 3. Moreover, the Court set a mid-discovery status conference to occur on June 2, 2014. Id.

24

at 4. Counsel were ordered to file a joint statement describing the discovery efforts made to date

25

in the case. Id. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to cooperate in the filing of the report and,

26

the report detailed only Defendant’s efforts. (Doc. 15 at 2)

27
28

At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff indicated that due to the attorney who had been
handling the matter leaving the firm 60 days before, no discovery has been conducted on

1

1

Plaintiff’s behalf. Moreover, Plaintiff had failed to respond to discovery propounded by

2

Defendant in a timely fashion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court was concerned about

3

Plaintiff’s failure to conduct discovery, the Court set a further status conference to occur on

4

August 22, 2014. Due to the failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to cooperate with the preparation of the

5

previous joint statement, the Court explicitly ordered counsel to file a joint status conference

6

report.

7

Nevertheless, once again, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to cooperate in the preparation of the

8

status conference report and, once again, the Court was provided no indication that Plaintiff has

9

engaged in any discovery. (Doc. 17) Further, Defendant reports that Plaintiff still has not made

10

his initial disclosures that were due more than six months ago.

11

appears that Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders and, it

12

appears, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action, the Court ORDERS:

13
14
15
16
17
18

1.

Id. at 6. Therefore, because it

No later than September 5, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL show cause in

writing why sanctions, up to and including an order of dismissal, should not issue for his failure
to comply with the Court’s orders and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action;
2.

In light of the information provided that Defendant is taking reasonable efforts to

complete its discovery efforts in a timely fashion as required, the status conference, currently set
on August 22, 2014 is VACATED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 19, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2