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)

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