Haynes v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 79

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/9/2015 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 3/26/2015.ORDER GRANTING 77 MOTION Reopen Discovery filed by City and County of San Francisco. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/13/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PAUL M HAYNES, Case No. 13-cv-01567-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. 12 13 On March 19, 2014, the parties settled this case at a settlement conference with Magistrate 14 Judge Elizabeth Laporte. Dkt. No. 37. The Court dismissed the case but retained jurisdiction for 15 enforcement of the parties’ agreement. Dkt. No. 39. As Plaintiff subsequently failed to sign the 16 agreement, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which the Court granted on 17 October 30, 2014. Dkt. No. 66. The Court ordered Plaintiff to sign the written settlement 18 agreement and provide it to Defendants’ counsel by October 31, 2014. Id. 19 On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff ordered a transcript of the hearing on Defendants’ motion to 20 enforce the settlement. Dkt. No. 74. He then filed a writ petition asking the Ninth Circuit Court 21 of Appeals to vacate this Court’s orders enforcing the settlement. See Dkt. No. 75. The Ninth 22 Circuit denied the writ petition on February 25, 2015, “without prejudice to renewing the 23 arguments in a subsequent appeal after a final judgment has been entered in the district court.” 24 Ofierski Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A, Dkt. No. 78. 25 On March 12, 2015, Defendants filed the present motion requesting that the Court reopen 26 discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining evidence of the distribution of the funds the City 27 has paid in settlement of Plaintiff’s claims. Mot., Dkt. No. 77. Defendants state that Plaintiff still 28 has not signed the agreement as ordered and has not dismissed his claims as required by the 1 agreement. Id. at 2. However, Defendants already issued a check for the full settlement amount, 2 payable to Plaintiff’s now former attorney Charles Bonner, and Mr. Bonner informed Defendants 3 that he provided Plaintiff with his share of the settlement amount. Id.; Ofierski Decl. ¶ 4. 4 Defendants maintain that whether Plaintiff obtained the benefit of the settlement bears on his legal 5 and equitable rights to contest the settlement. Mot. at 2. They seek to reopen discovery for the 6 limited purpose of confirming that Plaintiff has received the settlement proceeds. Id. 7 Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders, the Court GRANTS 8 Defendants’ request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of confirming that Plaintiff 9 received the settlement proceeds. Defendants may issue a subpoena directed to Charles Bonner 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 and a document production request to Plaintiff regarding the settlement proceeds. Further, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff Paul M. Haynes to show cause why he should 12 not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. Plaintiff is advised 13 that sanctions for contempt of court may include dismissal of this case with prejudice, a monetary 14 fine that accrues on a daily basis until Plaintiff signs the settlement agreement, or remanding him 15 to the custody of the United States Marshal for a term of imprisonment until such time as Plaintiff 16 signs the agreement. 17 Plaintiff shall file a declaration by March 26, 2015. If a responsive declaration is filed, the 18 Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or conduct a hearing on April 9, 2015 at 19 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 Dated: March 13, 2015 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 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?