Gillam et al v. City of Vallejo, et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/15/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 21 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's 6/8/2015 20 Order requiring monetary sanctions is VACATED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA
GILLAM,
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER
v.

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to obtain counsel

17
18

and continued the temporary stay of formal discovery and motion practice until a scheduling

19

order or other appropriate order issues. (ECF No. 16.) However, the court’s order made clear

20

that “[w]hether or not plaintiffs successfully retain an attorney, plaintiffs and defendants shall

21

meet and confer, and then file an updated joint status report with proposed dates for scheduling

22

the case no later than June 1, 2015.” (Id.)
On June 1, 2015, defendants filed a separate status report, indicating that the parties could

23
24

not agree on a proposed schedule for the case, and that plaintiffs would apparently be submitting

25

their own status report. (ECF No. 19.) However, plaintiffs failed to file any status report by the

26

required deadline. Nor did they timely request an extension of time to comply with the court’s

27

order.

28

////
1

1

Consequently, on June 8, 2015, the court issued an order imposing monetary sanctions in

2

the amount of $100.00 on plaintiffs and requiring the parties to file a joint status report, as

3

previously ordered, within 21 days. (ECF No. 20.)

4

Thereafter, on June 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 21.)

5

In that motion, plaintiffs claim that, although the parties initially disagreed on the proposed case

6

schedule, plaintiffs ultimately stipulated to defendants’ proposed schedule. (Id.) According to

7

plaintiffs, it was their understanding that defendants’ counsel would file “the status report” and

8

that plaintiffs had no obligation to file a separate status report. (Id.)

9

Taking plaintiffs at their word, and assuming that the parties had merely

10

miscommunicated regarding the matter, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and

11

vacates the order imposing monetary sanctions. Additionally, given that the parties now agree to

12

the proposed schedule set forth in defendants’ status report, the court vacates the order requiring

13

the filing of a further joint status report. A pretrial scheduling order is issued in a separately-filed

14

order.

15

However, the court notes that this needless satellite litigation regarding scheduling

16

amounted to a waste of the court’s already-limited resources, and demonstrates precisely why the

17

court insists on a joint status report. When the court requires a joint filing, it means a filing

18

signed by all parties and leaving no assumptions to be made as to who joins the filing, even if

19

only one of the parties physically files the document on the ECF system. Any differences that the

20

parties may have regarding a particular issue may be set forth in the joint filing, and do not

21

constitute good cause to file separate filings. Any party who fails to so comply will be sanctioned

22

without further warning.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is granted.

25

2. The court’s June 8, 2015 order (ECF No. 20) is vacated.

26

Dated: June 15, 2015

27
28
2