Lindsay Ross v. State of California et al
Filing
10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym:, Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed, and Directing Further Action by Parties (SEE MINUTES FOR DETAILS). (kca)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-1252-DSF (SP)
Title
LINDSAY C. ROSS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
May 11, 2012
Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge
Kimberly I. Carter
Deputy Clerk
None
Court Reporter / Recorder
None
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be
Imposed, and Directing Further Action by Parties
Plaintiff’s Failure to File Status Report
Under paragraph nine of the court's November 29, 2011 Case Management and
Scheduling Order, each party, either individually or jointly, was required to file a status
report no later than April 30, 3012. Defendants complied with this order through a status
report filed April 27, 2012. But more than a week after the deadline, plaintiff has failed
to file such a status report. Nor has plaintiff made any other communication with the
court. Plaintiff is therefore in violation of the court's order. As such, plaintiff is
ORDERED to submit the ordered status report and to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed for failure to comply with the court order by May 25, 2012.
As provided in the court’s November 29, 2011 case management order, plaintiff’s
status report – which must now be filed by May 25, 2012 – must comply with the
following guidelines:
The status report shall contain the following information: (a) a summary of the
proceedings to date and a statement of the principal issue(s) raised by the case; (b)
a statement as to whether all parties have been served, and if not, a proposed
deadline by which service will be completed; (c) a statement as to whether other
parties will be added or amended pleadings will be filed, and if so, a proposed
deadline by which those steps will be taken; (d) a description of any discovery
completed, and a schedule for any future discovery; (e) a list of contemplated
motions, if any, along with proposed dates for the filing and hearing of such
motions; (f) an estimate of the time likely to be required for trial, and a statement
as to whether trial by jury is desired and has been properly requested; (g) a
description of any settlement negotiations that have occurred, and a
recommendation as to the form of settlement conference or other method of
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-1252-DSF (SP)
Date
Title
May 11, 2012
LINDSAY C. ROSS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
alternative dispute resolution that would be most appropriate given the nature of
this case; and (h) any suggestions the parties may wish to make regarding the
management of this action.
In addition, defendants have raised a number of issues in their status report.
Plaintiff should address these issues in his status report, as described below.
Response to Issues Raised in Defendants’ Status Report
Defendants ask the court to modify and add to the deadlines set in its case
management order. Certain of the deadlines defendants ask the court to set – those to
file motions in limine and other trial motions, to submit pretrial documents, and for a
pretrial conference and trial – will not be set at this time by the assigned magistrate
judge. Absent the parties’ consent to have the case heard by a magistrate judge, any trial
of this case will be before the assigned district judge, who will set all such trial-related
dates.
As to the other deadlines and continuances defendants request, the court is
inclined to set certain of the deadlines, and is amenable to granting reasonable
continuances. The court is concerned with the length of the requested extensions,
including the request to extend the deadline to complete discovery by five months, and
to continue the deadline to file dispositive motions by almost six months. Before
deciding any of these matters, the court will consider plaintiff’s status report. Thus, the
court ORDERS that in plaintiff’s status report, plaintiff must specifically state his
position on whether the following deadlines need to be set or extended, and if so, what
the appropriate deadlines should be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Setting of last day to amend complaint or add/serve parties
Extension of deadline to serve written discovery requests
Setting of expert disclosure and report deadline
Extension of deadline to notice depositions
Extension of discovery cutoff
Extension of deadline to file discovery motions
Extension of deadline to file substantive motions
If defendants wish to reply respecting any of these points, they may file a written reply
within 7 days of the filing of plaintiff’s status report.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-1252-DSF (SP)
Date
Title
May 11, 2012
LINDSAY C. ROSS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
Defendants state that they have received conflicting information from plaintiff as
to whether he is signed up to receive electronic service of documents filed by the court,
and as to plaintiff’s proper mailing address for service of items such as discovery
requests. Court records indicate that plaintiff is indeed receiving electronic service of
court-filed documents. But the court also notes – to the extent this is not clear to any of
the parties – that while plaintiff will receive electronic service of filed documents, as a
non-lawyer plaintiff may not actually file his documents electronically; he still will need
to file manually. Further, the court ORDERS plaintiff to include in his status report a
single mailing address at which he agrees to and will receive any documents served by
mail, including discovery requests.
Defendants ask the court to strike certain language from the complaint, based on
the parties’ agreement stated in the Joint Report filed on January 4, 2012. Given the
parties’ apparent agreement, the court will order this, unless plaintiff states some
compelling reason why it should not in plaintiff’s status report.
Finally, in their status report, defendants have requested the court to dismiss the
State of California and, to the extent named, the Regents of the University of California,
contending that they are immune from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The
court will not dismiss defendants based on a request in a status report. If defendants
wish to seek dismissal of any defendant, they should file a properly noticed motion.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
