ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does

Filing 10

ORDER. The Court hereby WARNS Plaintiff and its counsel that they must strictly comply with the Court's orders. Failure to do so in the future may result in significant sanctions, up to and including dismissal. The Court otherwise DISCHARGES the order to show cause. In addition, Plaintiff has still not filed an amended complaint as ordered. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than 4/24/17, either an amended complaint or a proper request to extend the applicable deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00126-JCM-NJK
ORDER

16

On February 3, 2017, the Court ordered that “Plaintiff will have until March 17, 2017, to discover

17

the actual names of the Defendants through discovery, and to file a request to amend the complaint to

18

provide the actual names of the Defendants.” Docket No. 7. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. On

19

April 7, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, up to and

20

including dismissal. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff has now filed a response. Docket No. 9.

21

The gist of Plaintiff’s position is that the Court’s initial order did not provide sufficient time to file

22

an amended complaint. See Docket No. 9. Plaintiff misunderstands the import of Court orders; they are

23

not aspirational musings, but rather are directives that must be followed. See, e.g., Chapman v. Pac. Tel.

24

& Tel. Co., 613 F.2d 193, 197 (9th Cir. 1979). Even when a party believes an order is erroneous, it is not

25

relieved of its duty to obey it. Id. The same holds true with respect to orders setting deadlines: “Calendars

26

are simply too crowded for parties to treat scheduling orders as optional and to submit required court filings

27

at their own convenience.” Martin Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia Enterps., 186, F.R.D. 601, 603 (E.D.

28

Cal. 1999). When a party believes an order provides insufficient time for compliance, the obvious answer

1

to that dilemma is to file a motion seeking an extension. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).1 Simply ignoring

2

the order is not appropriate.

3

Given the circumstances, the Court hereby WARNS Plaintiff and its counsel that they must strictly

4

comply with the Court’s orders. Failure to do so in the future may result in significant sanctions, up to and

5

including dismissal. The Court otherwise DISCHARGES the order to show cause.

6

In addition, Plaintiff has still not filed an amended complaint as ordered. Plaintiff is hereby

7

ORDERED to file, no later than April 24, 2017, either an amended complaint or a proper request to extend

8

the applicable deadline.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED

10

Dated: April 17, 2017

11
________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff’s counsel found the Court’s order ambiguous or confusing, see
Docket No. 9 at 2, it is unclear why he did not file a motion seeking clarification.
2