Gillam et al v. City of Vallejo, et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/4/16 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to compel 27 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the January 14, 2016 hearing is VACATED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA
GILLAM,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

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

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Presently pending before the court is a motion to compel discovery responses, which has

18
19

been noticed for hearing on January 14, 2016. (ECF No. 27.)
Plaintiffs’ motion fails to comply with the notice and substantive requirements of Local

20
21

Rule 251, even though plaintiffs have previously been cautioned to comply with the Local Rules1

22

and the court’s orders. (See, e.g., ECF No. 23 at 7.) The court notes that plaintiff’s non-attorney

23

“legal assistant,” Frederick Marc Cooley, who, based on the familiar format of the document and

24

its reference to “Expressive Association” undoubtedly prepared the motion for plaintiffs’

25

signatures, is also well aware of the need to carefully review and comply with the Local Rules,

26
27

1

A copy of the court’s Local Rules can be obtained from the Clerk of Court or on the court’s
website.

28
1

1

given his involvement in several other cases in this district.

2

Therefore, the court denies the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local

3

Rule 251. Additionally, the court cautions plaintiffs that future failure to comply with the court’s

4

orders and the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiffs are again

5

reminded that, even if Mr. Cooley prepares motions for their signatures, Mr. Cooley is not an

6

attorney and cannot represent them in federal court. As such, it is plaintiffs who will be held

7

responsible for the contents of the filings, including their compliance with the Local Rules and

8

court orders.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

11

2. The January 14, 2016 hearing is VACATED.

12

Dated: January 4, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2