Lewis v. Dow Chemical Corporation

Filing 43

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for Wednesday, 3/7/2018 09:01 AM. Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by Monday, 3/5/2018.Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/1/18. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BERNARD LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

7
8

CASE NO. 16-cv-06165-YGR

vs.

9

DOW CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

10

Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PRE-FILING LETTER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 41

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Counsel for the above-named plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he

13

should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases

14

(“Standing Order”) regarding Pre-filing Conferences for Summary Judgment Motions.

15

The Court’s Standing Order states at Section 9(a): “Within three (3) business days after

16

receipt of the [moving party’s] letter, any adversary wishing to oppose the motion must file a

17

written response addressing the substance of the moving party’s letter, with a copy to Chambers

18

and the moving party. This response shall also be limited to three single-spaced pages, including

19

any attached exhibits or supporting papers.”

20

Defendant filed its pre-filing conference letter on February 14, 2018, and offered multiple

21

dates for a pre-filing conference. (Dkt. No. 41.) To date, plaintiff has failed to file a response to

22

that letter.

23

Further, on February 13, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 40)

24

why the Court should extend the discovery cutoff deadline as requested in plaintiff’s portion of the

25

parties’ joint discovery letter brief (Dkt. No. 39). Pursuant to the Court’s order, plaintiff was to

26

file a statement responding to the order no later than Tuesday, February 20, 2018. As of the date

27

of this Order, plaintiff has failed to file such statement.

28

In light of the fact that plaintiff has not shown cause to extend the discovery cutoff

1

deadline, plaintiff’s request that the Court permit late discovery is DENIED. Accordingly, and

2

additionally, because plaintiff neither sought leave to serve 43 extra interrogatories nor leave to

3

file a motion to compel responses to the same, plaintiff’s request regarding its extra interrogatories

4

is DENIED.

5

A hearing on the Order to Show Cause as to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

6

Standing Order shall be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, at 9:01 a.m., in the Federal

7

Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1 to determine whether sanctions

8

should be issued and the nature of such sanctions. Counsel must file a written response to this

9

Order to Show Cause no later than Monday, March 5, 2018. Failure to do so will be deemed an
admission that no good cause exists for plaintiff’s failures and that the imposition of monetary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sanctions is appropriate, in which case plaintiff’s counsel shall pay $200.00 to the Clerk of Court,

12

and defendant will be authorized to file its summary judgment motion without the need for a pre-

13

filing conference.

14

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 39.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 1, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2