Smithee et al v. California Correctional Institution et al

Filing 174

ORDER Discharging Sanctions 173 Order and Requiring Defendant to Pay Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 10/24/2024. Filing Deadline: 11/7/2024. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANA SMITHEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00004-JLT-CDB
ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS ORDER
AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY
SANCTIONS
(Doc. 173)
14-Day Deadline

17
18

On September 16, 2024, Defendant Pratap Narayn (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary

19

judgment against Plaintiffs Dana Smithee and E.M. (“Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 163). On October 21, 2024,

20

the Court notified Defendant that his summary judgment filings failed to comply with Local Rule 260

21

and 133 because he failed to lodge with chambers a complete copy of the transcripts of two

22

depositions referred to and relied on by Defendant in his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 171)

23

(citing Local Rule 260(a) and Local Rule 133(j)). Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to

24

comply with the lodging requirement by the following day (i.e., in advance of a scheduled motion

25

hearing in this action). Id. Defendant was warned that failure to timely comply would result in the

26

imposition of sanctions. Id.

27
28

Defendant did not timely comply with the Court’s order to lodge a copy of the transcripts
before the motion hearing and did not otherwise address his delinquency during the hearing. At the
1

1

conclusion of the hearing, the Court pointed out that Defendant was delinquent in complying with the

2

Court’s order and indicated to counsel for Defendant he needed to immediately comply with the

3

Court’s order and the local rules. Counsel for Defendant confirmed his awareness of the earlier order,

4

explained he had been busy and unable to lodge the transcripts, and that he would “immediately”

5

remedy the delinquency. See (Doc. 172).

6

After more than 24 hours had passed following the motion hearing, Defendant had yet to

7

comply with Local Rule 260, Local Rule 133, and the Court’s order directing him to lodge the

8

deposition transcripts as discussed above. Accordingly, on October 23, 2024, the Court entered an

9

order requiring Defendant to pay daily sanctions in the amount of $100 until he properly lodged

10

complete copies of the two deposition transcripts at issue. (Doc. 173).

11

That same day, an attorney not noticed in this action but seemingly acting at the direction of

12

counsel for Defendant emailed to chambers of the undersigned .pdf versions of the two deposition

13

transcripts at issue. In light of Defendant’s prompt response to the Court’s sanctions order and having

14

now come into compliance with the Court’s orders and the Local Rules, the Court shall discharge

15

further sanctions and shall impose a $100 sanction based on the Court’s order. Id. at 3 (“Defendant’s

16

lodging of the transcripts on the date of this order will not relieve Defendant of the sanction imposed

17

commencing on this date”).

18

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

Defendant Pratap Narayn shall pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 in sanctions no later than

20

November 7, 2024. Defendant shall promptly file proof of payment with the Court once payment is

21

made.

22

And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such payment and proof of payment is not timely

23

made, additional sanctions of $50.00 per day shall issue from November 7, 2024, until full payment is

24

received.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

October 24, 2024

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2