Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02973/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02973-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HENRY WASHBURN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAULO MORGADO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-02973 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s order issued orally on April 25, 2005 and memorialized in a

written order dated April 26, 2005 imposing monetary sanctions on both parties and requiring

Defendants’ counsel to distribute copies of the Court’s standing orders. Having carefully

reviewed Defendants’ papers and considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and

good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2004, following a case management hearing attended by both parties,

this Court issued its Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters which specified that the “close

of ALL discovery” was of February 25, 2005. In addition, the September Order set a pretrial

conference for April 25, 2005 and a trial to commence on May 16, 2005. 

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 69 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On April 18, 2005, the day pretrial submissions were due and after there were no

submissions or appearances before this Court since the time of the case management

conference, the Court received a letter from Defendants’ counsel which explained that the

parties had, without court approval, extended the discovery cut-off and were unprepared to go

forward with both the pretrial conference and the trial itself. Although discovery disputes had

been referred to a magistrate judge and any requests for an extension of the discovery period

would have been granted for good cause shown, the parties instead determined to engage in

self-help. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery after the close of discovery and were

still in the process of exchanging expert information, or in Plaintiff’s case, the lack of experts,

at the time just preceding the pretrial conference. The letter from Defendants’ counsel

explained in detail the extent and amount of outstanding discovery issues and detailed the

failure of the parties to meet and confer sufficiently in advance of the scheduled pretrial

conference. 

On April 20, 2005, the Court received a responsive letter from Plaintiff’s counsel

explaining that he had attempted unsuccessfully to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel

and that he was prepared to go to trial, notwithstanding the volume of outstanding discovery

and related unresolved issues. Plaintiff also submitted proposed jury instructions, proposed voir

dire and an incomplete pretrial conference statement. 

As a result of receiving counsels’ letters and inadequate pretrial filings from only one

party, this Court issued an order on April 22, 2005, which found that the parties were

unprepared to proceed to trial and had failed to comply with the rules of this Court. The order

further took the pretrial conference off calendar and informed the parties that it would instead

conduct a status conference. 

On April 25, 2005, this Court held a lengthy status conference in which it detailed the

scores of unfinished discovery and addressed all of the issues raised in the parties’ letters. The

Court inquired about the status of the remaining percipient witnesses to be deposed, the status

of outstanding expert disclosures and expert discovery, the production of outstanding

potentially discoverable materials, the status of written discovery, and the dismissal of parties. 

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 69 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The Court inquired further about the parties’ intentions whether to file motions in limine or

other, long overdue, dispositive motions. The Court engaged the parties on the status of the

case also involving Mr. Washburn now pending before Judge Jenkins. 

After affording the parties sufficient time to explain their concerns regarding the status

of all of the outstanding matters, the Court explained that the parties had failed to follow this

Court’s standing orders. The Court admonished the parties that they had failed to follow this

Court’s September 13, 2004 order which specifically stated that ALL discovery was closed as

of February 25, 2005. The Court admonished the parties that they had failed to submit the

required pretrial filings as required by this Court’s standing order on trial and pretrial

conferences in civil cases (at paragraph 1). The Court admonished the parties that

communication by letter, in the absence of a discovery dispute, is a violation of its general

standing order (at paragraph 10). The Court’s very first general standing order also provides

that failure to comply “with any of the rules and orders may be deemed sufficient grounds for

monetary sanctions . . . or other appropriate sanctions.” The Court read the exact language of

its standing orders into the record. 

The Court then questioned counsel about the explanation for their failures to comply

with this Court’s standing orders. When given an opportunity to be heard, counsel for both

parties explained that they had engaged in self-help and their mutual agreements to extend

discovery created a severe delay in the preparation for trial. In effect, both parties blamed each

other for failing to comply with this Court’s standing orders. In addition, Defendants’ counsel

stated that she had no explanation for the Court and offered only an apology. Although Plaintiff

claimed to be ready for trial, his submissions were inadequate and demonstrated the parties’

failure to meet and confer in order to file joint submissions as required by this Court. 

At the end of the extensive hearing at the status conference on April 25, 2005, and

having failed to demonstrate good cause for the wholesale and egregious transgressions, the

Court determined that the parties’ multiple failures to comply with the standing orders merited

the imposition of sanctions. The Court further determined that because Defendants’ counsel is

part of a larger legal office, the submission of a letter in violation of the Court’s standing orders

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 69 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The written order was not as specific as the oral order the preceding day, which

required only that Defendants’ counsel distribute the standing orders to the litigation

department of the office. The Court intended only that the standing orders be served on

those persons who litigate and who may therefore appear before this Court.

4

merited the imposition of the requirement that Defendants’ counsel circulate a copy of the

Court’s standing orders to all litigation personnel in their office. On April 26, 2005, this Court

issued a written order setting out the sanctions.1

ANALYSIS

A party moving for reconsideration must first seek leave of the court to file such a

motion and must specifically demonstrate: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry

of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought; or (2) the emergence of new

material facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure

by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order. Civil L.R. 7-9(a) and (b). The moving party may not 

reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civil L.R. 7-9(c). 

Defendants have failed to make this requisite showing. Defendants claim that because

they were not given advance warning that the Court was considering the imposition of

sanctions, it did not have time to prepare adequately. Defendants contend that had they been

notified in advance of the status conference that they might have to defend against the

imposition of sanctions, they “would have provided additional facts, which would have proved

its conduct not sanctionable, and would have cited legal authority to support its position that

sanctions were not warranted.” (Motion at 4.) 

In this matter, the Court did not levy sanctions without good cause and without an

opportunity for the parties to contest the fairness of the sanctions. “Sanctions . . . should not be

assessed lightly or without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record.” 

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980). The imposition of sanctions may

require fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record to satisfy the requirements of

due process. Oregon RSA No. 6 v. Castle Rock Cellular, 76 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 69 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

The Court conducted an extensive and time-consuming hearing, addressed all of the parties’

outstanding issues, and provided an opportunity for counsel to explain the multiple violations of

this Court’s orders. Having been provided such an opportunity, and having failed to

demonstrate good cause for the transgressions, this Court levied appropriate sanctions. 

In addition, the Court’s standing orders explicitly state that failure to comply “with any

of the rules and orders may be deemed sufficient grounds for monetary sanctions . . . or other

appropriate sanctions.” (General Standing Orders, paragraph 1.) Standing orders govern the

conduct of proceedings before this Court and, by its own terms, parties are provided sufficient

notice that any violation of such orders may subject them to sanctions. See Civil L.R. 1-5(o). 

Further, sanctions are independently appropriate in instances in which a party or a party’s

attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, or if the party or party’s attorney is

substantially unprepared to participate in the conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 

Defendants have failed to demonstrate a material difference in fact or law from that

which was presented to the Court before entry of the sanctions order, or the emergence of new

material facts or change of law occurring after the order was issued, or a manifest failure by the

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

Court before the sanctions were ordered. In addition, the parties were given ample time to

proffer good cause for their multiple violations of this Court’s case management and standing

orders, and having failed to do so, the imposition of sanctions was both reasonable and

warranted.

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. Defendants’ request for a stay and/or to extend time to execute the sanctions is also

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 69 Filed 05/03/05 Page 5 of 5