Garza v. BG Retail LLC

Filing 25

ORDER DISCHARGING 22 Order to Show Cause; ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to File Report, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 5/23/2023. Three-Day Deadline. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN P. GARZA,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01051-JLT-CDB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Doc. 22

BG RETAIL LLC d/b/a/ Famous
Footwear,

15
Defendant.
16

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE REPORT
THREE-DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff John P. Garza initiated this action in state court on October 18, 2021. Defendant
removed the case to this Court on August 19, 2022. (See Doc. 1, Notice of Removal).
The scheduling order in this matter, entered December 9, 2022, required the parties to

21

appear for a mid-discovery status conference on May 17, 2023, and to file a joint report

22

addressing specified topics at least one week in advance of the conference. (Doc. 20, p. 3). The

23

parties timely filed their joint report on May 10, 2023, in which they outlined a series of issues

24

related to Plaintiff’s reported inability or unwillingness to comply with Defendant’s discovery

25

requests. (Doc. 21). Thereafter, on May 12, 2022, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk emailed to

26

counsel for both parties Zoom videoconference connection information for the upcoming mid-

27

discovery status conference.

28

Counsel for Plaintiff failed to appear at the mid-discovery status conference (Doc. 22),

1

failed to provide any notice to the Court in advance of his anticipated absence, failed to respond

2

to email inquiries from the Court while it was convened with Counsel for Defendant awaiting

3

Plaintiff’s appearance, and throughout the day following the conference, failed to communicate

4

any information to the Court concerning his absence.

5

On May 17, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing

6

why sanctions should not issue for his failure to appear for the mid-discovery status conference.

7

(Doc. 23). In that order, the Court also directed Plaintiff to answer numerous questions

8

concerning representations in the parties’ joint mid-discovery status report that suggested Plaintiff

9

was not diligently engaging in discovery.

10

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 24).

11

Therein, counsel for Plaintiff attests that due a “family emergency,” he “failed to check” his

12

schedule and missed the mid-discovery status conference. Counsel further represents: “But for

13

the family emergency, I would not have committed such error and would have attended the

14

hearing.”

15

In his filing, counsel for Plaintiff also responded to some – but not all – of the specific

16

questions the Court directed him to answer. For instance, counsel failed to respond to the Court’s

17

direction to identify the dates on which counsel attempted to interact with Plaintiff in connection

18

with responding to Defendant’s discovery demands. Moreover, counsel’s filing suggests that not

19

all of the discovery lapses noted in the parties’ mid-discovery status report are attributable to

20

Plaintiff’s medical condition. For instance, Plaintiff’s responses to certain written discovery were

21

due to be provided to Defendant on March 24, 2023. More than ten days passed and Plaintiff had

22

neither responded nor provided Defendant any update about the status of his outstanding

23

responses. Plaintiff thereafter offered an estimated time by which he intended to respond, but that

24

date, too, lapsed, requiring Defendant several days later to follow-up. All of this transpired

25

before Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital (on April 10, 2023, see Doc. 24) and counsel for

26

Plaintiff offers in his response to the show cause order no other reason or explanation for his

27

tardiness. Counsel for Plaintiff also represents that he will begin propounding written discovery

28

on May 23, 2023, and serve on Defendant responses to its written discovery by May 26, 2023.
2

1

While counsel for Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause in explaining the reason for his

2

failure to appear at the mid-discovery status conference, his incomplete answers to the Court’s

3

questions concerning discovery lapses undermines the Court’s confidence that he will exercise

4

reasonable diligence throughout the remainder of the discovery phase.

5
6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s May 17, 2023 order to show
cause (Doc. 23) is DISCHARGED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before May 26, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a report

8

indicating whether he has (1) completed service on Defendant of Plaintiff’s written discovery,

9

and (2) completed service on Defendant of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery.

10

The parties are reminded that non-expert discovery is to be completed by July 14, 2023,

11

and are encouraged to timely meet and confer regarding the scheduling and undertaking of any

12

depositions.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

May 23, 2023

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3