Motaghedi v. Blinken ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEYED AMIN SAM MOTAGHEDI, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01466-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT 13 TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING v. ORDER, VACATING HEARING, AND 14 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 15 Defendants. (Docs. 66, 68) 16 17 _____________________________________/ 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendants withheld 21 adjudications of case-by-case waivers of Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting 22 Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or 23 Other Public-Safety Threats. (See Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs raise claims under the Administrative 24 Procedure Act, as well as claims for mandamus relief, deprivation of procedural due process, and 25 Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment. (See generally Doc. 1.) 26 The Court entered a Scheduling Order on June 29, 2020. (Doc. 66.) In the Scheduling 27 Order, the Court ordered, among other things, that Defendants file on the Court’s docket the 28 certified Administrative Record on or before August 6, 2020. (See id.) 1 Defendants did not file the certified Administrative Record on the on August 6, 2020.1 (See 2 Docket.) Instead, according to Plaintiffs, Defendants sent a “series of 13 or 14 separate emails” 3 purportedly containing the Administrative Record to counsel on August 6 and August 7, 2020. 4 (See Doc. 68 at 2.) On August 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel contending that the 5 Administrative Record they received via email was incomplete. (See id.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendants’ deadline for filing of the certified 8 Administrative Record on the Court’s docket expired on August 6, 2020. Defendants did not seek 9 to modify the Scheduling Order prior to August 6, 2020; they did not file the Administrative 10 Record by that date; and they have they offered any explanation for their failure to comply with 11 the Scheduling Order.2 12 Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the 13 court modifies it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 14 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth 15 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted). 16 Disregard of the terms of the scheduling order “undermine[s] the court's ability to control its 17 docket, disrupt[s] the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent and the 18 cavalier.” Id. 19 III. ORDER 20 Defendants are therefore ORDERED to comply with the Scheduling Order and file the 21 certified Administrative Record on the Court’s docket by no later than September 8, 2020. 22 Defendants are CAUTIONED that the failure to comply with this order may be grounds for 23 the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause 24 non-compliance with this order. 25 26 1 Instead, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss four days later, on August 10, 2020, asserting that the claims of all-but- one of the plaintiffs are moot, and that judicial economy favored staying the litigation as to the remaining plaintiff. (See 27 Doc. 67.) 2 Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion does not address their failure to comply with the Scheduling Order. 28 Rather, it rather requests that the motion be “deferred until after the district court rules on the United States’ motion to 1 Because the certified Administrative Record is not before it, the Court cannot at this time 2 evaluate whether what was received by Plaintiffs via email constitutes the “complete 3 administrative record.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 68) is DENIED 4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed, if appropriate, following the filing of the certified 5 Administrative Record on the docket. The hearing on the motion, currently set for September 9, 6 2020, is hereby VACATED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Sheila K. Oberto 9 Dated: September 2, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28