Mendia v. Garcia

Filing 224

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/27/2017 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 3/30/2017. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/23/2017. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BERNARDO MENDIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

10

JOHN M. GARCIA, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 10-cv-03910-MEJ

Defendants.

12
13

The Court issued multiple orders requiring Plaintiff Bernardo Mendia (“Plaintiff”) to

14

attend (1) a deposition Defendant the United States (“Defendant”) noticed for March 22, 2017 in

15

San Francisco, California; (2) a Court-ordered, in-person meet and confer session on March 23,

16

2017; and (3) a hearing on Plaintiff‟s Motion to Stay on March 23, 2017. Dkt. Nos. 203, 210, 220.

17

Plaintiff failed to attend any of these proceedings. See Dkt. No. 221.

18

In addition, Defendant notified the Court Plaintiff did not comply with the Court‟s prior

19

orders to produce documents pertaining to his calculation of damages in accordance with Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Dkt. No. 213; see Dkt. No. 203 ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 194 ¶¶ 1-2.

21

On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response stating he “has provided [D]efendant . . . [with]

22

„Plaintiff‟s Preliminary Calculation of Damages Specific to Federal Tort Claims Act Claims‟

23

which painstakingly details Plaintiff‟s preliminary calculation of damages on the one claim that

24

Plaintiff can provide a detailed calculation of damages. (ECF No. 215)[.]” Dkt. No. 216

25

(emphasis in original). This does not satisfy Plaintiff‟s Rule 26 obligations. Plaintiff did not

26

provide Defendant with this document prior to filing, i.e., six days after the Court-ordered

27

deadline for production. See Dkt. No. 203. Moreover, Plaintiff‟s Preliminary Calculation does

28

not comply with Rule 26: Plaintiff states he “is unable to provide a preliminary calculation of

1

damages” for two of his three claims against Defendant, and he does not provide supporting

2

material for his sole computation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) (“[T]he disclosing party . . .

3

must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other

4

evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is

5

based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered[.]”).

6

The Court previously warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this Court‟s orders may

7

result in sanctions. Dkt. No. 203 at 2; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The Court also warned

8

that “[i]f Plaintiff d[id] not attend his deposition, he w[ould] be responsible for paying the

9

reasonable fees and costs Defendants‟ counsel have incurred in travelling to San Francisco.” Dkt.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

No. 210.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not

12

impose sanctions, including but not limited to, monetary penalties, striking his request for

13

damages, or dismissing his claims. Plaintiff shall respond no later than March 30, 2017. Also no

14

later than March 30, 2017, Defendant shall submit a declaration detailing the fees and costs

15

incurred in travelling to San Francisco to attend Plaintiff‟s deposition. The Court shall hold a

16

show cause hearing on April 27, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

17

San Francisco, California.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2