Garza v. BG Retail LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN P. GARZA, Case No. 1:22-cv-01051-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 14 BG RETAIL LLC d/b/a/ Famous Footwear, Doc. 22 15 Defendant. THREE-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 The scheduling order in this matter, entered December 9, 2022, required the parties to 18 appear for a mid-discovery status conference on May 17, 2023, and to file a joint report 19 addressing specified topics at least one week in advance of the conference. (Doc. 20, p. 3). The 20 parties timely filed their joint report on May 10, 2023, in which they outlined a series of issues 21 related to Plaintiff’s reported inability or unwillingness to comply with Defendant’s discovery 22 requests. (Doc. 21). Thereafter, on May 12, 2022, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk emailed to 23 counsel for both parties Zoom videoconference connection information for the upcoming mid- 24 discovery status conference. 25 Counsel for Plaintiff failed to appear at the mid-discovery status conference (Doc. 22), 26 failed to provide any notice to the Court in advance of his anticipated absence, failed to respond 27 to email inquiries from the Court while it was convened with Counsel for Defendant awaiting 1 Plaintiff’s appearance, and during the seven hours following the conference, has not affirmatively 2 communicated any information to the Court concerning his absence. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 4 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 8 2000). 9 Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the Court’s order to appear for the mid-discovery 10 status conference, and through his misconduct, is preventing the Court from effectively managing 11 its docket. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, no later than May 22, 2023, counsel for 12 Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for his failure to comply 13 with the scheduling order. 14 The parties’ joint mid-discovery status report – the representations within which the Court 15 presumes to be accurate given Counsel for Plaintiff’s signature on the document – portrays a 16 concerning characterization of Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in failing to respond to Defendant’s 17 discovery demands. For instance, Plaintiff’s responses to certain written discovery were due to 18 be provided to Defendant on March 24, 2023. More than ten days passed and Plaintiff had 19 neither responded nor provided Defendant any update about the status of his outstanding 20 responses. Plaintiff thereafter offered an estimated time by which he intended to respond, but that 21 date, too, lapsed, requiring Defendant several days later to follow-up. 22 While the Court is aware from the parties’ joint report that Plaintiff’s medical condition 23 did and may continue to inhibit his ability to participate in the discovery process, the Court does 24 not presently have sufficient information to assess the nature and scope of any possible 25 misconduct. 26 Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel include in his written 27 response to the Order to Show Cause answers to the following questions: 1 | responding to Defendant’s discovery demands? 2 | (2) On what date did Plaintiff enter the hospital? 3 | (3) What is the nature of Plaintiff’s incapacitation that he is unable to participate with counsel in 4 | responding to written discovery demands? 5 | (4) Is Plaintiff currently hospitalized or incapacitated to the extent he remains unable to assist 6 | counsel respond to written discovery demands? 7 | (©) When does Plaintiff intend to respond to the written discovery demands? 8 | (6) When does Plaintiff intend to propound written discovery? 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _May 17, 2023 [nr DR~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28