Johnson v. Ace Brunk

Filing 25

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/17/2017 ORDERING that defendant's counsel shall show cause in writing no later than 8/1/2017 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion in violation of the court's local rules. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
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-1277-MCE-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ACE BRUNK, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) based on defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s order requiring 19 discovery responses to be served by June 19, 2017. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff noticed his motion for 20 hearing on July 12, 2017. Id. 21 As the motion only sought the imposition of sanctions, Local Rule 251(e) applied. See 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e) (providing that the requirement that the parties file a Joint Statement re 23 Discovery Disagreement does not apply “when the only relief sought by the motion is the 24 imposition of sanctions.”). Under Local Rule 251(e), a responding party must file a response to 25 the discovery motion at issue no later than seven days before the hearing or, in this instance, by 26 July 5, 2017. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be 27 grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 28 within the inherent power of the Court.” 1 1 Defendant failed to timely file an opposition to the motion. However, the day before the 2 scheduled hearing, and just hours before the close of business, plaintiff withdrew his motion for 3 sanctions, indicating that defendant had “just sent in its responses to discovery, including 4 verifications.” ECF No. 24. Id. 5 While resolving discovery disputes is always to be encouraged, there appears to be no 6 justification for defendant’s failure to respond to the motion in violation of the court’s Local Rule 7 251(e). Nor is it excusable that defendant’s counsel did not respond to the discovery until the day 8 before the hearing date. The result has been that the court and its staff wasted already strained 9 judicial resources preparing for the hearing on a motion that is now moot. 10 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s counsel shall 11 show cause, in writing, no later than August 1, 2017, why sanctions should not be imposed for 12 failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion in 13 violation of the court’s local rules. 14 DATED: July 17, 2017. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?