DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCO DIMERCURTO, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04029-JSC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 9 v. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 10 EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, REGARDING MEDIATION Defendant. 11 12 On July 16, 2020, at the parties’ further Case Management Conference, the Court ordered 13 the parties to file a written submission by August 17, 2020 providing the name of their private 14 mediator and date of mediation to occur by December 31, 2020. (Dkt. No. 35.) After several 15 extensions of this deadline, on November 6, 2020 the Court ordered the parties to file within one 16 week a written statement identifying the mediator and date of mediation to occur by December 31, 17 2020. (Dkt. No. 41.) 18 On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a statement in which they reported that the parties 19 held a series of conferences throughout October 2020 regarding outstanding discovery disputes, 20 their private mediator, and selecting a date for mediation. (Dkt. No. 43 at 2.) Plaintiffs stated they 21 accepted Defendant’s proposed mediator, T. Warren Jackson, on October 20, 2020, and that 22 Defendant’s schedule required the mediation to occur in January 2021 rather than by December 23 31, 2020. 24 According to Plaintiff’s statement, for two weeks following October 20, 2020—the date 25 that Plaintiffs accepted Defendant’s proposed mediator—Plaintiffs repeatedly contacted Defendant 26 regarding the mediation date, with no dates offered by Defendant; when Plaintiffs contacted Mr. 27 Jackson directly on November 3, 2020, he reported that, on October 21, he provided Defendant 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs immediately contacted Defendant, requesting that “[Defendant] let 2 [Plaintiffs] know if any of [Mr. Jackson’s proposed January dates] work for [Defendant] in the 3 next day or two,” and that, absent any confirmation, Plaintiffs would move forward assuming that 4 || Defendant “was only using the prospect of mediation as a delay tactic.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 2.) 5 After this Court issued its Order on November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs again contacted 6 || Defendant. On November 9, 2020, Plaintiffs e-mailed Defendant regarding certain outstanding 7 discovery issues, as well as the selection of a mediation date, and stated their willingness to meet 8 and confer on November 10, 2020 regarding the parties’ mediation. Plaintiffs aver that they have 9 || received no communications from Defendant in response to their November 9, 2020 e-mail. □□□□ 10 at 3.) 11 Defendant has failed to comply with this Court’s Order requiring the parties to submit a 12 statement identifying both the name of their private mediator and date of mediation. Moreover, 13 Defendant has refused to cooperate with Plaintiffs in complying with this Court’s Order, leaving 14 || Plaintiffs’ requests for assistance in selecting a mediation date—even one in January—without 3 15 reply. Defendant has filed no response to Plaintiffs’ statement explaining or justifying its conduct. A 16 || Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why it should not be sanctioned 3 17 for its conduct and refusal to comply with this Court’s orders. See Salamon vy. Creditors Specialty 18 || Serv., Inc., No. C 11-172 CW, 2013 WL 415633, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (citing Unigard 19 Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood End'd & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992)). Defendant is 20 || ordered to file a response to this Order by November 19, 2020. The Court will schedule a hearing 21 or telephonic conference regarding the parties’ mediation deadline and briefing schedule, if 22 || necessary, following Defendants’ written submission to this Show Cause Order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 16, 2020 25 □□□ Stal ACQUELINE SCOTT CORL 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28