Opinion
22-cv-04948-JSW
02-16-2024
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DISMISSING DEFENDANT CLARK, ORDERING DKT. NO. 57 BE SEALED, AND ADMONISHING COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 56, 57
JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 9, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the claims against Defendant Clark should not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Plaintiffs filed a response on February 15, 2024, indicating that they did not oppose the dismissal without prejudice of Defendant Clark or Defendant Hernandez. (Dkt. No. 57.) The Court ORDERS that Defendant Clark is HEREBY DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m).
The Order to Show Cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED.
The Declaration of David M. Meyers contains privileged attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient communications that should not have been published on the public docket. The Court therefore ORDERS that Docket No. 57 be sealed.
The Court is gravely concerned that Attorney Meyers violated his duties of competence, diligence, and loyalty to Plaintiffs by publishing their confidential and privileged communications. Further, Attorney Meyers' declaration evidences a lack of diligence on his part in prosecuting this action against Defendants Clark and Hernandez, as Attorney Meyers does not consider those Defendants to be important. Attorney Meyers also appears unaware that Defendant Hernandez had previously been dismissed from this action under Rule 4(m). (Dkt. No. 54.)
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADMONISHES Attorney Meyers and warns that future violations of his ethical obligations to Plaintiffs will result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions, referral to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for further investigation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-6(a)(1), and/or referral to the State Bar of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.