United States of America et al v. Somina, Inc., et al.

Filing 123

Order DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause and directing Relator/ Plaintiff to file Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/25/2019. (Rosales, O.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.
NICOLE O'NEILL,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING
RELATOR/PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION
TO COMPEL

Plaintiffs/Relator,

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00433-DAD-EPG

v.
(ECF No.121)

15
16

SOMNIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On January 25, 2019, the Court set a Telephonic Status Conference for March 12, 2019,

19 at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 112.) Relator/Plaintiff Nicolle O’Neill did not appear for the conference,
20 did not file a request for a continuance of the conference, and did not otherwise notify the Court
21 that she would not be able to attend the conference. (ECF No. 120.) The Court therefore issued
22 an order requiring Relator/Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be issued for her
23 failure to attend a court conference. (ECF No. 121.) Relator/Plaintiff filed a response to the
24 order to show cause on March 15, 2019. (ECF No. 122.)
25

In the response, Relator/Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he did not appear at the court

26 conference because he had entered the conference on his office’s calendaring system on the
27 correct date but at the incorrect time of 10:00 a.m., rather than the correct time of 9:30 a.m., and
28 that his error was not detected by his paralegal. (ECF No. 122 at 4-5; see id. at 5-6.) Counsel

1

1 takes full responsibility for the error and resulting failure to appear at the March 5, 2019, 9:30
2 a.m. court conference. (Id. at 4-5.) Counsel also explains that he learned, at approximately 9:45
3 a.m. on March 5, 2019, that the conference was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m.
4 He called the Court’s conference line to make a telephonic appearance, but the conference had
5 already ended. (Id. at 5.)
6

In light of counsel’s explanation, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause.

7 However, the Court cautions that it does not take lightly the failure of counsel to appear at a
8 court conference or hearing and DIRECTS counsel to take appropriate steps to ensure that his
9 office has in place procedures that ensure error-free calendaring.
10

The Court’s review of the joint status report, as well as Plaintiff’s response to the order to

11 show cause, demonstrates that Plaintiff has a ripe discovery dispute that requires a formal
12 motion and hearing. Rather than reset the status conference, the Court further DIRECTS
13 Relator/Plaintiff to proceed with the filing of a motion to compel and to contact the Court’s
14 courtroom deputy for a hearing date on the motion. The Court will discuss the need for a further
15 status conference at the hearing on the motion to compel.
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2