Sandoval et al v. AB Landscaping, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER STRIKING 46 "Plaintiffs' Responses to Order to Show Cause". The Clerk shall remove the document from the file and ECF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/25/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2011)

Sandoval et al v. AB Landscaping, Inc. et al

Doc. 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

** E-filed February 25, 2011 **

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LUIS SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AB LANDSCAPING, INC., et al., No. C09-04969 HRL ORDER STRIKING "PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" [Re: Docket No. 46] Defendants. ____________________________________/ On February 15, 2011 this Court issued an Order directed to plaintiffs and their attorney to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed or sanctions imposed for their failure to prosecute. Docket No. 42. The Order was set for hearing on February 22, at the same time as the already scheduled Pre Trial Conference. Id. No suggestion was made that a written response to the Order was desired. See id. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' counsel did file a document on February 19 captioned "Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause" ("Response"). Docket No. 46. In it he gave his version of why there had been delays in the timely preparation of the case for trial. Id. Unfortunately, the explanation included a discussion of events and conversations occurring during the case's Early Neutral Evaluation. Id. These revelations appear to violate this Court's local ADR rules on confidentiality. See ADR Local Rule 5-12. Accordingly, counsel is admonished to learn and abide by the ADR rules.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Also, because the Court ultimately discharged the Order to Show Cause (and did not dismiss the case or impose any sanctions), and because no legitimate purpose will be served by retaining the Response in the court file, the Response is ordered to be stricken and removed from ECF. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2011 HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C09-04969 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: Adam Wang Adam Lee Pedersen Roger Mark Mason [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

3