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)

Download PDF
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

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?