Liao v. United States of America et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING ATTENDANCE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE by Judge William Alsup [denying 18 Motion to Appear by Telephone]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

WANXIA LIAO,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

v.

No. C 11-02494 WHA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ERIC HOLDER,
Attorney General of United States, STEPHANIE
DOUGLAS, Special Agent in Charge for FBI San
Francisco, JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, U.S.
Attorney for California, SAUNDRA BROWN
ARMSTRONG, U.S. District Court Judge, PHYLLIS
HAMILTON, U.S. District Court Judge, KAY YU,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for State of
California, “JLM,” clerk to defendant Judge
Armstrong, QUELITA BOURGEOIS, Financial
Technician for U.S. District Court, MOLLY DWYER,
Clerk of the 9th Cir. Court of Appeal, MACON
PHILLIPS, White House Director of New Media,
CNN, WASHINGTON POST, WALL STREET
JOURNAL, TOPIX.COM,

CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER AND ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE

21
Defendants.
22

/

23
A case management conference was held on October 27, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.
24
Despite proper notice, plaintiff Wanxia Liao did not attend. Less than 48 hours before the
25
hearing, she filed a motion to allow her to attend by telephone. This came to the undersigned
26
judge’s attention shortly before the case management conference. At the case management
27
conference, the Court DENIED the motion because the telephone facilities in the courtroom are
28
not conducive to holding hearings. When someone is talking on the telephone, it is very

1

difficult to interrupt them given the equipment used in our courtroom so that a normal hearing

2

cannot be held. Moreover, plaintiff chose to sue in this district and it is not unreasonable to

3

ask her to attend a hearing in the very district she elected to sue.

4

The upshot of the case management conference was that defendants intend to bring a

5

motion to dismiss and will do so soon. Plaintiff, through this order, is advised to attend that

6

hearing in person. Further, at the same hearing, she should SHOW CAUSE why this case

7

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution due to her failure to attend the case

8

management conference.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: October 27, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2