Conwright v. City Of Oakland et al

Filing 163

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: late oppositions to motions in limine. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 2/27/12 at 10:00 AM. Show Cause Responses, if any, due by 2/24/12 at 3:00 PM. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/23/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 JOANNE CONWRIGHT, 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. NO. C09-2572 TEH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 On February 21, 2012, Defendant filed timely oppositions to three of Plaintiff’s four 12 motions in limine. On February 22, Defendant filed a late opposition to the fourth along with 13 declarations explaining the late filing. Plaintiff filed late oppositions to all eight of 14 Defendant’s motions in limine on February 22, and a declaration explaining the late filings 15 on February 23, 2012. Plaintiff also submitted a docket entry purporting to “correct” the 16 response deadline to February 22, 2012. This is incorrect, as the Court’s March 14, 2011 17 Order for Pretrial Preparation establishes the deadline as February 21, 2012, and counsel 18 cannot modify deadlines set by Court order or rules without an order from this Court. The 19 Court has yet to determine whether it will accept the late-filed oppositions. 20 This is not the first deadline that Plaintiff has missed. As the Court explained in its 21 most recent of three orders to show cause against Plaintiff’s counsel, Marylon Boyd: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 First, counsel failed to file a case management statement for the initial case management conference on December 7, 2009. At that conference, the Court granted Conwright’s oral motion for leave to file an amended complaint and granted counsel until January 15, 2010, to file Conwright’s amended complaint. Counsel did not file the amended complaint until January 25, 2010. More recently, counsel missed not one, but two sets of deadlines relating to the opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and this Court issued orders to show cause on June 30, 2010, and July 27, 2010. Counsel paid a $50.00 sanction discussed in the Court’s June 30 Order to Show Cause, and the Court did not impose any additional sanctions. 1 However, the Court advised counsel “that failure to comply with the Court’s rules and deadlines in the future will be subject to additional sanctions.” Aug. 8, 2010 Scheduling Order & Order Vacating Orders to Show Cause at 1. Despite this warning, Conwright’s counsel has missed yet another deadline. 2 3 4 Jan. 7, 2011 Scheduling Order & Order to Show Cause at 1-2. The Court did not sanction 5 Ms. Boyd at the March 14, 2011 show cause hearing but explained that she was on “the 6 shakiest of grounds,” that her conduct was unacceptable, and that the Court did not want it to 7 happen again. Ms. Boyd indicated that she understood, although it is apparent now that she 8 did not. 9 With good cause appearing, counsel for both parties shall show cause on 11 failure to file timely oppositions to the motions in limine. Such sanctions may include For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 February 27, 2012, at 10:00 AM, as to why sanctions should not be imposed for their 12 monetary sanctions as well as leaving in place the Court’s order granting all motions for 13 which no timely oppositions were filed. If any monetary sanctions are imposed, counsel can 14 expect such sanctions to double for each subsequent violation of this Court’s rules. 15 The Court will consider the declarations already filed by counsel when it determines 16 whether to issue sanctions. Counsel may, at their option, file additional declarations in 17 response to this order, but any such declarations must be filed on or before February 24, 18 2012, at 3:00 PM. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: 02/23/12 23 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?