Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01283-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLINE RECORDS, INC.; VIRGIN )

RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; ARISTA )

RECORDS LLC; UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; )

ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.; )

and INTERSCOPE RECORDS, )

) 2:05-cv-1283-GEB-PAN(JFM) 

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

v. ) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

) CONFERENCE

KRISTI HANSEN, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 26, 2006, an Order issued requiring Plaintiffs to

show cause (“OSC”) why sanctions should not be imposed for their

failure to file a timely status report, and continuing the status

conference to August 14, 2006. The OSC also required Plaintiffs to

file a status report fourteen days prior to the status conference.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the OSC on June 9, 2006, in

which they state “Plaintiffs requested that the Clerk of the Court

enter a default against Defendant . . . [and] Plaintiffs’ counsel was

under the mistaken impression that the default would obviate the need

to file a status report in this action, and would serve as notice to

the Court that a pretrial scheduling conference on June 5, 2006 would

Case 2:05-cv-01283-GEB-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 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

The OSC process is time-consuming and requires me to 1

assure myself that sanctions are appropriate in a specific

amount. It is hoped that counsel comply with future scheduling

dates so that sanctions jurisprudence need not be invoked again. 

Obviously, it is incumbent upon counsel practicing in federal

court to follow applicable practice.

The status conference will remain on calendar, because 2

Plaintiffs’ mere representation that this action could settle

does not justify ignoring the scheduling contemplated under Rule

16. Cf. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)

(indicating that a representation that claims have been settled

does not necessarily establish the existence of a binding

settlement agreement). 

2

be unnecessary.” Plaintiffs’ counsel should know the judge has no

obligation to look at the court docket for the purpose of gleaning

whether an excuse existed for Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely

status report. Plaintiffs are warned that sanctions are not issued

this time only because of the weightiness of the Court’s docket.1

In their status report filed July 31, 2006, Plaintiffs

represent that although Defendant has not yet filed an answer, “[t]he

parties . . . are in contact . . . and are hopeful that they may be

able to reach a settlement.” Plaintiffs also “request that the Court

vacate the status conference . . . and grant the parties sixty (60)

days to finalize a settlement.” Plaintiffs’ request to vacate the

status conference is denied because it is inconsistent with the

judge’s Rule 16 case management obligations. But the status

conference will be continued to November 6, 2006. A joint status 2

report shall be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01283-GEB-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2