Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02217-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN GILLAM & PAMALA 

GILLAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2217-KJM-KJN PS 

ORDER

On April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to obtain counsel

and continued the temporary stay of formal discovery and motion practice until a scheduling 

order or other appropriate order issues. (ECF No. 16.) However, the court’s order made clear 

that “[w]hether or not plaintiffs successfully retain an attorney, plaintiffs and defendants shall 

meet and confer, and then file an updated joint status report with proposed dates for scheduling 

the case no later than June 1, 2015.” (Id.)

On June 1, 2015, defendants filed a separate status report, indicating that the parties could 

not agree on a proposed schedule for the case, and that plaintiffs would apparently be submitting 

their own status report. (ECF No. 19.) However, plaintiffs failed to file any status report by the 

required deadline. Nor did they timely request an extension of time to comply with the court’s 

order.

////

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Consequently, on June 8, 2015, the court issued an order imposing monetary sanctions in 

the amount of $100.00 on plaintiffs and requiring the parties to file a joint status report, as 

previously ordered, within 21 days. (ECF No. 20.)

Thereafter, on June 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 21.) 

In that motion, plaintiffs claim that, although the parties initially disagreed on the proposed case 

schedule, plaintiffs ultimately stipulated to defendants’ proposed schedule. (Id.) According to 

plaintiffs, it was their understanding that defendants’ counsel would file “the status report” and 

that plaintiffs had no obligation to file a separate status report. (Id.)

Taking plaintiffs at their word, and assuming that the parties had merely 

miscommunicated regarding the matter, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and 

vacates the order imposing monetary sanctions. Additionally, given that the parties now agree to 

the proposed schedule set forth in defendants’ status report, the court vacates the order requiring 

the filing of a further joint status report. A pretrial scheduling order is issued in a separately-filed 

order. 

However, the court notes that this needless satellite litigation regarding scheduling 

amounted to a waste of the court’s already-limited resources, and demonstrates precisely why the 

court insists on a joint status report. When the court requires a joint filing, it means a filing 

signed by all parties and leaving no assumptions to be made as to who joins the filing, even if 

only one of the parties physically files the document on the ECF system. Any differences that the 

parties may have regarding a particular issue may be set forth in the joint filing, and do not 

constitute good cause to file separate filings. Any party who fails to so comply will be sanctioned 

without further warning. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is granted.

2. The court’s June 8, 2015 order (ECF No. 20) is vacated.

Dated: June 15, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02217-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2