Grizzle v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 178

ORDER on Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 7/11/2022.(jrm)

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-WVG Document 178 Filed 07/12/22 PageID.2194 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELLIOTT SCOTT GRIZZLE,

Case No.: 17-CV-813-JLS-WVG
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Response to this Court’s June 21, 2022 Order

19

to Show Cause (“OSC”), which was prompted by Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear for

20

the June 21, 2022 Video Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). (Doc. No. 176.)

21

Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin Macnamara, contends his absence from the MSC was due to a

22

medical emergency, specifically profuse sweating that developed after Mr. Macnamara

23

was discharged from La Palma Intercommunity Hospital on or about June 20, 2022. (Id.,

24

2:1-8.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Response to the OSC as well as Mr.

25

Macnamara’s pertinent medical records that Plaintiff attached as “Exhibit A" to his

26

Response. Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court declines to impose

27

sanctions upon Plaintiff for Mr. Macnamara’s non-compliance. The Court elaborates

28

below.
1
17-CV-813-JLS-WVG

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-WVG Document 178 Filed 07/12/22 PageID.2195 Page 2 of 3

1

Courts “unquestionably” possess the inherent power to assess sanctions for

2

disobedience of a court order. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S.

3

240, 258-59 (1975); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991). This District’s

4

Civil Local Rule 83.1 emphasizes the point in providing that non-compliance with court

5

orders, the Local Rules, or the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure may be

6

grounds for the Court to impose “any and all sanctions... including, without limitation,

7

dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary

8

sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions. Civ. L.R. 83.1(a)-(b).

9

“When choosing among possible sanctions, the court should consider a sanction designed

10

to: (1) penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction; (2) deter

11

parties from engaging in the sanctioned conduct; (3) place the risk of an erroneous

12

judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk; and (4) restore a prejudiced party

13

to the same position he or she would have been in absent the wrongdoing.” Robinson v.

14

City of San Diego, 2013 WL 525679, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2013) (citing Palmer v.

15

Stassinos, 2007 WL 2288119, 3 (N.D. Cal. Aug.6, 2007).); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)

16

(stating “on motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those

17

authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) (ii)-(vii)” for a party’s failure to appear at a scheduling or

18

pretrial conference.)

19

Undoubtedly, Mr. Macnamara violated the Court’s April 20, 2022 Order when he

20

failed to appear for the June 21, 2022 MSC. Although Plaintiff’s Response does not

21

explicitly state so, it appears Mr. Macnamara had an opportunity to alert the Court of his

22

medical emergency prior to the MSC but failed to do so. In Plaintiff’s Response, Mr.

23

Macnamara indicates he “began to sweat profusely” after he left La Palma Intercommunity

24

Hospital, and his hospital visit took place at least one day prior to the MSC. (Id., 2:1-8.)

25

Even so, Mr. Macnamara declined to provide advance notice to the Court of his fear of

26

“execut[ion] by electrocution” due to his profuse sweating and quadriplegic state, which

27

was the apparent cause of Mr. Macnamara’s absence from the MSC. (Id., 1:20; 2:14-17.)

28

Mr. Macnamara exacerbated his non-compliance by failing to respond to Chambers’ June
2
17-CV-813-JLS-WVG

Case 3:17-cv-00813-JLS-WVG Document 178 Filed 07/12/22 PageID.2196 Page 3 of 3

1

21, 2022 voicemail message, two follow-up phone calls, and two emails inquiring about

2

his availability to participate in the MSC that afternoon.

3

Mr. Macnamara’s reticence is not well taken. Leading up to and during the MSC,

4

Mr. Macnamara had ongoing opportunities to inform the Court that he was experiencing a

5

medical issue necessitating a continuance of the MSC. Nonetheless, Mr. Macnamara

6

declined to contact Chambers during this span of time. Moreover, the Court’s orders to

7

appear for the MSC were just that- orders and not suggestions. All attorneys, including Mr.

8

Macnamara were expected to appear. Mr. Macnamara’s failure to appreciate this

9

requirement both hampers this action’s progress and undermines the Court’s objective to

10

manage its cases efficiently. Nevertheless, the Court declines to impose sanctions onto Mr.

11

Macnamara. Concurrently, the Court cautions Mr. Macnamara it will not tolerate future

12

non-compliance, particularly the kind that disrupts this litigation or the Court’s docket. Mr.

13

Macnamara is reminded to make every effort to comply with the Court’s orders and all

14

applicable rules to avoid the risk of non-compliance and the imposition of sanctions.

15

Dated: July 11, 2022

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-813-JLS-WVG