McMurray v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/24/09 ORDERING pltf TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING no later than 4:00 PM on 12/28/09 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a timely status report. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Sheriff JOHN MCGINNESS; Deputy Sheriffs JAVIER BUSTAMANTE, V. CANDIDO, L. CULP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, VALETTA MCMURRAY, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 02:09-cv-02245-GEB-EFB ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The August 13, 2009, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case for November 30, 2009, and required the parties to file a joint status report no later than fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further required that a status report be No

filed regardless of whether a joint report could be procured. status report was filed as ordered.

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause ("OSC") in a writing to be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 28, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. The written response shall

also state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is

requested, it will be held on January 19, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that date. A status report shall be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the status conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 24, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

"If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged." Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985). 2

1