Opinion
8:21-cv-01792-JLS-KES
05-31-2024
Christopher Wallis v. Plutos Sama Holdings, Inc., et al.
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS AND ORDER STRIKING UNILATERAL RULE 26(f) REPORT (Doc. 104)
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff's Counsel, Andrew Phan, filed a unilateral Rule 26(f) Report. (See Report, Doc. 104.) That report represented that “Plaintiff exchanged the proposed Rule 26(f) Joint Report with counsel for Defendant. To date, Plaintiff's counsel has yet to receive Defendant's information, if any.” (Id. at 1.) This representation made it appear as though Defendant's Counsel, Jesse Gessin, had failed to follow the Court's meet and confer requirements and refused to participate in the cooperative process of drafting a Joint Rule 26(f) Report, as this Court requires. (See Order Setting Scheduling Conference, Doc. 83.) Gessin then filed a declaration, explaining that it was actually Phan who had failed to comply with the Court's orders. Phan did not meet and confer with Gessin 21 days before the Scheduling Conference, as required, and instead ignored an email from Gessin about that meet and confer requirement. (See Gessin Decl. ¶ 2, Doc. 105-1; Ex. A to Gessin Decl., Doc. 105-2.) Then, on the date the Joint Rule 26(f) Report was due, 14 days before the Scheduling Conference, Phan emailed a draft report to Gessin and, without awaiting reply, unilaterally filed the Report a few hours later. (Gessin Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. B to Gessin Decl., Doc. 105-3.)
Phan's conduct is in clear violation of the Court's orders regarding Rule 26(f) Reports. Worse, Phan's statements to the Court were a clear misrepresentation of the situation, making it seem as though it was Gessin who was unresponsive and uncooperative. Phan is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why he should not be sanctioned for violating the Court's orders and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Phan shall respond, in writing, no later than five (5) days from the issuance of this Order. Phan's response shall not exceed four pages.
Additionally, the unilateral Rule 26(f) Report filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 104) is STRICKEN. The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED to June 28, 2024. The parties shall comply meet and confer regarding the Joint Rule 26(f) Report no later than June 7, 2024, and shall file a Joint Report no later than June 14, 2024. If Plaintiff's Counsel fails to comply with the Court's procedures for Joint Rule 26(f) Reports again, it will be grounds for immediate dismissal of the action.