GN Trade Inc. et al v. Siemens et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/6/12 ORDERING that the undersigned amends the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 43 at 5) suasponte as follows: All discovery shall be completed by 2/4/13. Motions to compel discovery mu st be noticed on the undersigned's law and motion calendar in accordance with the court's Local Rules and must be heard no later than 1/24/13. All other dates within the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 43 ) remain ineffect. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the undersigned will not look favorably upon requests to further extend the discovery period or alter other dates set in that Order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VLADIMIR SHEVCHENKO, et al.

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. 2:11-cv-00994 KJN

v.
ANDREAS SIEMENS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

The undersigned previously granted Alla V. Vorobets’ motion to withdraw as

17

counsel for plaintiffs.1 (Order and Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), Aug. 10, 2012, Dkt. No. 49.)

18

On November 11, 2012, the undersigned dismissed GN Trade, Inc. from this action and ordered

19

plaintiffs Vladimir Demin and Vladimir Schevchenko, both proceeding without counsel, to

20

update the court regarding the status of their state court action. (Order, Nov. 20, 2012, Dkt. No.

21

51.)

22
23

On December 4, 2012, plaintiff Shevchenko filed a “Response” informing the
court that on August, 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed a request to have their state court cross-complaint

24
25
26

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned as a result of the parties’ voluntary consent
to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. Nos. 38, 40). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E. Dist. Local Rule 301.
1

1

dismissed. (Response, Dkt. No. 52 at 1-2.) Based on this representation, the undersigned will

2

not stay this action at this time, and the action continues to proceed toward trial.

3

Plaintiff Shevchenko also urges the undersigned “not to dismiss this case, but to

4

allow Vladimir Shevchenko ‘plaintiff’ to represent him self In Pro Per, to start on discovery, and

5

to submit discovery in front of the Judge in time.” (Id. at 2.)

6

First, the undersigned informs plaintiffs that discovery is to be exchanged with

7

opposing parties, see e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 30-37, and is not typically to be “submitted” to the

8

court, unless it is as part of a discovery dispute or other appropriate motion. See e.g., E. Dist.

9

Local Rule 251.

10

Second, the undersigned is somewhat surprised at plaintiff Schevchenko’s recent

11

representation that he wishes to “start on discovery” now. (Response, Dkt. No. 52 at 2.) The

12

operative Pretrial Scheduling Order states that the discovery completion date in this case is

13

January 4, 2013. (Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 43 at 5 (“All discovery shall be completed by

14

January 4, 2013.”).) That date is less than one month away. Moreover, plaintiffs have had ample

15

notice of the discovery cutoff, especially given that the Scheduling Order was filed over ten

16

months ago. Further, the undersigned previously directed the plaintiffs to review and comply

17

with the Pretrial Scheduling Order, specifically informing them that “several key dates are

18

rapidly approaching.” (Order, Dkt. No. 51 at 2-3) (citing Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 43).)

19

The parties have had ample time to conduct discovery in this action. However, in

20

an abundance of caution given plaintiffs’ pro se status, the undersigned sua sponte vacates the

21

discovery cutoff date of January 4, 2013, and extends the discovery deadline in this action by

22

thirty (30) days. The discovery cutoff is now February 4, 2013. Relatedly, all motions to compel

23

discovery must be noticed and must be heard no later than January 24, 2012. All other dates in

24

the Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the

25

undersigned will not look favorably upon requests to further extend the discovery period.

26

////
2

1

Plaintiffs should consider themselves on notice that they will be required to

2

comply with these deadlines notwithstanding their status as pro se litigants. As the undersigned

3

has already informed plaintiffs, they remain obligated to timely comply with the discovery rules,

4

rules of litigation procedure, and this court’s orders. (Order, Dkt. No. 51 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs have

5

the obligation to review and comply with the undersigned’s prior orders, the Eastern District

6

Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding their status as non-

7

attorneys. (Id.) Litigants proceeding without counsel, also known as pro se litigants, are bound

8

by the rules of litigation procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Eastern

9

District Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing without counsel, provides that failures to

10

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules may be grounds for

11

dismissal or other appropriate sanctions. Similarly, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to

12

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

13

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Ghazali v.

14

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

Plaintiffs are also reminded that a district court may impose sanctions, including

16

involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), if

17

plaintiffs fail to prosecute their case or fail to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules

18

of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44

19

(1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”);

20

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)

21

(stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua

22

sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the

23

court’s orders); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper

24

ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to

26

comply with any order of the court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d
3

1

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control

2

their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal). Plaintiffs are informed that a

3

failure to timely prosecute their case and/or comply with court orders, including but not limited

4

to the Pretrial Scheduling Order as amended herein, may result in dismissal of plaintiffs’ case.

5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7

The undersigned amends the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 43 at 5) sua

sponte as follows:

8

(a)

All discovery shall be completed by February 4, 2013.

9

(b)

Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the undersigned’s

10

law and motion calendar in accordance with the court’s Local

11

Rules and must be heard no later than January 24, 2013.

12

2. All other dates within the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 43) remain in

13

effect. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the undersigned will not look favorably upon

14

requests to further extend the discovery period or alter other dates set in that Order.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: December 6, 2012

17
18
19

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4