Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-00188-LJO-SAB
05-07-2013
RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff, v. GURCHARAN RAKKAR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER AND NOTICE OF
CONTEMPT HEARING
Courtroom 9
On May 1, 2013, the Court ordered Defendants Gurcharan Rakkar, Ryan John Cloud and Stephen Ronald Cloud, Jr. ("Defendants") to show cause why Defendants should not be sanctioned for their failure to comply with a court order requiring the parties to jointly prepare and file a Joint Schedule Report. (ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not issue and to file a Joint Scheduling Report by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 3, 2013.
On May 2, 2013, Defendants filed two documents titled "Joint Scheduling Report," but these documents failed to comply with the form and content requirements set forth in the Court's Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) Plaintiff filed a declaration informing the Court that Defendants' filings were not properly formatted and that Defendants did not coordinate with Plaintiff in drafting the filings. (ECF No. 14.) The Court struck Defendants' filings from the record and ordered Defendants to file a Joint Scheduling Report that complied with the Court's order. (ECF No. 15.) Defendants did not file a Joint Scheduling Report thereafter. Moreover, Defendants did not respond to the Court's order to show cause.
Defendants' repeated failure to cooperate in the preparation and filing of a Joint Scheduling Report has caused undue delay in this litigation. The Court relies on jointly prepared scheduling reports in setting the trial dates and deadlines in cases and in managing its large caseload. Moreover, Defendants' failure to cooperate with Plaintiff in the preparation of the Joint Scheduling Report forced Plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs associated with preparing two declarations explaining why Plaintiff had to file a non-Joint Scheduling Report and explaining how Plaintiff had no participation in the filing of Defendants' reports.
In light of Defendants' repeated and unexplained failure to comply with this Court's orders, the Court will hold a hearing to determine whether Defendants' and/or their attorney (Stephen R. Cloud, Sr.) should be held in contempt and whether sanctions should be imposed against Defendants and/or their attorney. Defendants are forewarned that sanctions may include any and all civil contempt sanctions necessary to coerce compliance with this Court's order and/or to compensate Plaintiff for costs incurred as a result of Defendants' conduct. Plaintiff may present evidence at the hearing demonstrating the costs incurred as a result of preparing the declarations filed on April 30, 2013 and on May 2, 2013. (ECF Nos. 10, 14.)
In addition to contempt sanctions under 18 U.S.C. § 401, sanctions may be imposed by the Court pursuant to the Court's inherent power, see Local Rule 110, or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
The sanctions and contempt hearing will take place at the same date, time and place as the scheduling conference currently scheduled for May 7, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. Defendants' counsel, Stephen R. Cloud, Sr., shall be required to attend in person.
Moreover, in light of Defendants' failure to participate in the preparation of a Joint Scheduling Report, the Court will conduct the scheduling conference and issue a scheduling order based solely on the information provided in Plaintiff's scheduling report.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A sanctions and contempt hearing shall take place on May 7, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Stephen R. Cloud, Sr., counsel for Defendants, shall appear in person for the hearing and may not request a telephonic appearance.
__________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE