Cotterill v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White DENYING 39 Motion for Administrative Relief and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Issued. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHERYL COTTERILL, Plaintiff, v. SF CITY AND COUNTY, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. C 08-02295 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is the motion for administrative relief filed by defendants, The Regents of the University of California and related individual defendants (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff has filed no opposition. Plaintiff has submitted a letter after expiration of the period for objecting to the administrative motion requesting that the Court reset the case management conference and extend the period to object to the outstanding motion. The administrative motion requests that the Court allow Defendants to be relieved of the obligation of submitting joint statements and/or statement co-authored by Plaintiff's counsel, Gregory M. Haynes. Attached to the motion are documents that indicate that communication between counsel has broken down to the point where filing joint submissions is particularly difficult. The Court is not pleased by the level of incivility in this matter. It is unacceptable. However, the Court will not excuse the meet and confer requirements for joint submissions. Therefore, the administrative motion is DENIED.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Instead, at the case management conference set for October 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m., the Court will address, and resolve, the incivility present in this case. The behavior exhibited in the documents attached to the administrative motion does nothing to advance the interests of the parties and will simply not be tolerated by this Court. The parties shall submit a joint case management statement by no later than October 3, 2008. To the extent there are substantive matters that the parties do not agree upon, the statement shall reflect such disagreement and shall do so in a civil and respectful manner. In addition, the Court issues this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff's counsel shall file a written response by no later than October 6, 2008 why sanctions should not be levied against him and responding to the specific allegations of misconduct detailed in the administrative motion and again in the responsive letter from Defendants' counsel dated September 29, 2008. Counsel for both parties are hereby ORDERED to attend the case management conference on October 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. accompanied by their client or client representative. Plaintiff's late-filed request to reschedule the case management conference and to extend the deadline for opposing the administrative motion is DENIED. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 711(b). The request is untimely and counsel clearly require Court intervention. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: September 30, 2008

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2