Johnson v. Zarakani et al

Filing 20

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/29/2014. By no later than 1/7/2015, William Bernheim shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why he should not be personally sanctioned for failure to respond to plaintiff's Di scovery Requests, failure to file a Request for Withdrawal of Counsel or Substitution of Counsel with Court, and failure to appear on behalf of his clients at 12/18/2014 Hearing. Failure to comply with this Order may result in monetary sanctions or any other appropriate sanctions. By no later than 1/15/2015, plaintiff's counsel shall file a Status Report that includes information concerning subjects referenced. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0696-MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,
ORDER AND

v.
SAEED ZARAKANI, et al.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ discovery responses and for monetary sanctions pursuant

18

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 came on for hearing before the court on December 18, 2014.

19

Attorney Christopher Seabock appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant Saeed Zarakani

20

appeared on his own behalf despite the fact that the docket in this case currently reflects that both Mr.

21

Zarakani and co-defendant Mardan, Inc. are represented by attorney William Bernheim. Mr. Bernheim did

22

not make an appearance for either defendant.

23

During the course of the hearing, it came to the court’s attention that Mr. Bernheim has made

24

representations to both his client Mr. Zarakani and to plaintiff’s counsel that he seeks to withdraw as

25

defendants’ counsel in this matter and will be seeking to substitute himself out for new counsel. However,

26

in order to withdraw as defendant’s attorney of record for this case, Mr. Bernheim must comply with the

27

requirements set forth in Local Rule 182. Under Local Rule 182(d), an attorney seeking to withdraw from

28

representation in a manner that would leave his or her client to proceed in propria persona must obtain the

1

1

court’s leave to make such a withdrawal. Similarly, under Local Rule 182(g), an attorney seeking to

2

substitute his or herself out for new counsel must submit a substitution form that must be approved by the

3

court before the substitution is considered complete. Unless and until the current counsel of record obtains

4

the court’s approval under either circumstance, that attorney is still required to represent his or her client

5

before this court.

6

The docket in this case reflects that Mr. Bernheim has not yet made any filing or other formal

7

indication to the court that he seeks to withdraw as defendants’ counsel or to substitute in a new attorney

8

as counsel of record in this case. Accordingly, the court orders William Bernheim to show cause in

9

writing by no later than January 7, 2015, as to why sanctions should not issue against him personally in

10

accordance with Local Rule 110 for his failure to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, failure to file a

11

request for withdrawal of counsel or substitution of counsel with the court, and failure to appear on behalf

12

of his clients at the December 18, 2014 hearing.1

13

In light of the order to show cause and for the reasons stated on the record during the December

14

18, 2014 hearing, the court declines rule on plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for sanctions at this

15

juncture. Instead, the court encourages the parties to meet and confer with one another concerning how

16

they wish to proceed with regard to defendants’ production of the discovery requested by plaintiff.2

17

By no later than January 15, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a status report detailing whether defendants

18

have complied with plaintiff’s discovery requests, and, if not, whether the parties have agreed upon a date

19

by which defendants are to produce the requested discovery. Plaintiff shall also indicate whether it still

20

wishes to pursue the present motion to compel in whole or in part.

21

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

By no later than January 7, 2015, William Bernheim shall show cause in writing why he

23

should not be personally sanctioned for his failure to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, failure to

24

file a request for withdrawal of counsel or substitution of counsel with the court, and failure to appear on

25
1

26
27
28

Sanctions may include, but may not be limited to, plaintiff’s expenses incurred in connection
with bringing the present motion to compel.
2

As noted by the court at the hearing, the parties may also wish to explore the possibility of
settlement of this case during their meet and confer efforts.
2

1

behalf of his clients at the December 18, 2014 hearing. Failure to comply with this order may result in

2

monetary sanctions or any other appropriate sanctions.

3
4
5
6

2.

By no later than January 15, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a status report that includes

information concerning the subjects referenced above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2014

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