Bell v. NuSil Technology, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN BELL, individually and on behalf of ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0061 - JLT members of the general public similarly ) 12 situated, ) ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 Plaintiff, ) IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 v. ) ) 15 NUSIL TECHNOLOGY LLC, et al., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 On November 9, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel 19 Defendants to supplement their initial disclosures. (Doc. 26) At that time, the Court ordered: “No later 20 than November 23, 2020, the parties SHALL file a joint proposed protective order,” after which 21 Defendants would be required to produce the insurance agreement in issue. (Id. at 8, emphasis in 22 original.) To date, however, the parties have not filed a proposed protective order or requested an 23 extension of time. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 28 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 1 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or 2 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 3 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (sanctions for failure to prosecute and comply with an order); 4 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for to comply 5 with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions 6 for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, within seven days the parties SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions 8 should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within seven 9 days they may file the joint proposed protective order. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 24, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28