Balthrope v. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/18/2012 DENYING 48 Motion for Sanctions. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

ARIEL BALTHROPE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-3003-KJM-JFM (PS)

vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

On December 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendants

17

Sacramento Child Advocates, Robert Wilson, Lisa Presley and Rebekah Sass (collectively, “the

18

SCA defendants”), and Peter Helfer. Plaintiff asserts sanctions are warranted because the SCA

19

defendants filed their status report only two days before the December 1, 2011 scheduling

20

conference, as opposed to seven days as ordered by the May 26, 2011 order setting a scheduling

21

conference. Plaintiff argues this delay was prejudicial because it prevented her from objecting to

22

the scheduling dates proposed by the SCA defendants. Plaintiff also argues that sanctions are

23

warranted against Peter Helfer who failed to submit a status report at all.

24

Upon review, the undersigned does not find that sanctions are warranted. While

25

it is true that the SCA defendants did not file their status report seven days prior to the

26

scheduling conference, plaintiff herself was tardy in filing in her status report. Indeed, both
1

1

status reports were filed on the same day, November 28, 2011. Moreover, although the May 26,

2

2011 order setting the scheduling conference directed the parties to address the scheduling of any

3

anticipated motions and discovery, plaintiff failed to suggest any dates at all. Finally, in light of

4

this court’s December 8, 2011 findings and recommendations recommending that Peter Helfer’s

5

July 14, 2011 motion to dismiss be granted with prejudice, the court will deny plaintiff’s request

6

as to this defendant.

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 6,

8

2011 motion to sanction is denied.

9

DATED: January 18, 2012.

10
11
12
13

/014;balt3003.jo(3)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2