Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp. et al

Filing 52

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE JANUARY 25, 2017 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than February 3, 2017, at noon, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the January 25, 2017 order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/1/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SERGIO MORA,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00198-DAD-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
JANUARY 25, 2017 ORDER

v.
ZETA INTERACTIVE CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 3, 2017, AT
NOON

15
16

On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery with a hearing on the

17 motion set for February 8, 2017. (ECF No. 46.) The parties filed a joint statement re discovery
18 disagreement on January 23, 2017. (ECF No. 49.)
19

On January 25, 2017, an order issued requiring the parties to conduct a meaningful meet

20 and confer in person or by telephone regarding the issues in the motion to compel on or before
21 January 31, 2017. (ECF No. 50.) The parties were also ordered to file a supplemental joint
22 statement detailing their renewed meet and confer efforts and any additional information for the
23 motion, or a notice of withdrawal of the motion to compel, on or before January 31, 2017. If
24 Plaintiff did not withdraw the motion to compel and Defendants requested a protective order that
25 was different from Plaintiff’s proposed protective order, Defendants were ordered to file a copy
26 of their proposed protective order.
27

On January 31, 2017, Defendants filed their updated statement re discovery disagreement

28 discussing their position and their proposed protective order. (ECF No. 51.) Defendants indicate
1

1 in their updated statement re discovery disagreement that after the parties met and conferred on
2 January 30, 2017, Plaintiff provided Defendants with an updated joint statement reflecting
3 Plaintiff’s changes. Defendants then provided Plaintiff with Defendants’ changes. Defendants
4 state that they then inquired multiple times regarding Plaintiff’s intent to file the updated joint
5 statement, but they did not receive any response from Plaintiff and Plaintiff had not filed the
6 joint statement at the time Defendants filed their updated portion of the joint statement.
7 Although Plaintiff was participating in drafting the supplemental joint statement, it appears that
8 Plaintiff stopped communicating and did not file the supplemental joint statement. Plaintiff also
9 did not file a supplemental statement re discovery disagreement, file a notice of withdrawal of
10 the motion to compel, or otherwise respond to the Court’s January 25, 2017 order.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

11

12 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
13 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
14 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
15 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
16 2000).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no

17

18 later than February 3, 2017, at noon, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to
19 comply with the January 25, 2017 order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show
20 cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action.
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

February 1, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2