Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02730/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02730-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELDRIDGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

AND COORDINATED CASES:

Miller, Leon v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00457 VC

Palmer, Xavier v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00458 VC

Noble, Paul C. v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00461 VC

Jones Jr., Johnnie E. v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00462 VC

Roane, Glen v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00464 VC

Ricketts, David v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00465 VC

Tom, Lester v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00466 VC

Crocker, Sal v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00468 VC

Manswell, Anthony v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00469 VC

Minter, Karl v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00470 VC

Washington, Erwin v. United Airlines, Inc. et 

al. 4:15-cv-00471 VC

Wilson, Darryl v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00472 VC

Sherman, Leo v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00473 VC

Haney, Ken v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00474 VC

John, Richard v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00475 VC

Briscoe, Odie v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00476 VC

Hartsfield, Terrence v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00477 VC

Case No. 12-cv-02730-VC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SANCTIONS

Case 3:12-cv-02730-VC Document 204 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

It appears obvious that this case will involve the exchange of material that must be subject 

to a protective order, and that the refusal by counsel for the plaintiffs to agree to a protective order 

is vexatious and in bad faith. Therefore, counsel for the plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why 

they should not be required to reimburse the defendants for the attorneys' fees incurred to bring 

this motion. See, e.g., Quality Inv. Prop. Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Elec., Inc., 2010 WL 

2889178 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2010). Counsel for the plaintiffs must file a brief in response to this 

order to show cause by 8:00 p.m. on August 12, 2015, and they must be prepared at the hearing on 

the motion for a protective order to explain why they should not be so sanctioned. Counsel for the 

defendants must submit a declaration at the hearing setting forth the attorneys' fees that they 

believe plaintiffs' counsel should reimburse their clients. This declaration must be provided to 

counsel for the plaintiffs in advance of the hearing so they have an opportunity to object to it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-02730-VC Document 204 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2