Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

 ) 

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 02 6583 AWI SMS

ORDER DEEMING REQUEST TO FILE

LATE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TO BE REQUEST TO CONSIDER LATE

RESPONSE (DOCS. 276)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONSIDER

THE LATE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (DOCS.

276, 275) 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with counsel with a civil action.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

On June 23, 32005, Defendants filed a motion to compel

discovery responses and for attorney’s fees. No opposition was

filed by Plaintiffs. On July 11, 2005, Defendants filed a notice

of non-opposition. On July 12, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a request

to file a late response to the motion to compel, as well as a

late response. On July 13, 2005, the Court’s orders vacating the

hearing on the motion to compel and granting the motion to compel

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 287 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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 Court had its staff call counsel for the parties on July 12, 2005, to inform them that the Court was

already processing an order vacating the hearing on the motion, and that an order that was dispositive of the motion

would issue forthwith. 

2

and for attorney’s fees were filed.1 On July 13, 2005, Defendants

filed a reply to the request for consideration of a late response

and response.

The Court determined the motion to compel responses and for

attorney’s fees on the basis of the Defendants’ moving papers and

the Defendants’ notice of non-opposition.

Because the Plaintiff’s response and request to file late

response have been electronically filed, the Court DEEMS the

request to file late response TO BE a request to consider the

late response.

 The discovery responses in question went out in early

April. In the request to consider the late response, Plaintiffs’

counsel declares that he received a meet and confer letter, that

appears to have been dated June 10, 2005 (and apparently sent by

facsimile as well as United States Mail) from Defendants’ counsel

on June 13, 2005, with a deadline of June 15, 2005; Plaintiff’s

counsel was out of town on legal business on June 14 through June

15, 2005. He did not respond to the meet and confer letter until

June 23, 2005, and then sought to have his clients assemble the

needed information by June 27, 2005. However, the Court notes

that by that time, the motion to compel had been filed. There is

no indication that Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to communicate

with Defendants’ counsel between June 13, 2005, and June 23,

2005. Plaintiffs’ counsel was unavailable because he was out of

town between June 23, 2005 (the date the motion to compel

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 287 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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

discovery responses was received) and June 24, 2005. He was busy

with preparation for sentencing hearings in another case from

June 28, 2005, through July 6, 2005. For undisclosed reasons, he

could not prepare a response on July 7, 2005; and he was

scheduled to be out of town for a legal appearance on July 14,

2005, the date on which the hearing on the motion was scheduled.

The Court sympathizes with the position of a busy sole

practitioner involved in complex litigation; the Court is also

mindful of the demands placed on counsel by other proceedings in

this action which appear of record. However, the Court is

likewise concerned with the efficient administration of justice

and the intelligent and economical use of the Court’s resources.

Despite counsel’s involvement in related proceedings in this

case and in other matters, there is no precise indication why

Plaintiff’s counsel could not have communicated with counsel

after June 10, 2005, and before June 23, 2005, the date on which

the motion to compel was filed. Likewise, despite counsel’s

involvement in other matters, there is no clear explanation of

why it was not possible for counsel to have prepared a short

declaration and timely to have sought an extension of time with

respect to opposing the motion. The Court emphasizes that even if

there were a basis for granting a timely sought extension of

time, the failure of counsel to seek such an extension rendered

the motion unopposed and put the Court, which must adhere to the

schedule set by the pertinent rules and notices, in the position

of expending resources in considering the motion without input

from Plaintiff’s counsel. Although Plaintiffs’ counsel declares

that all of the responses have now been completed, this does not

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 287 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

address the necessity of the filing of the motion in the first

instance, which is what resulted in the generation of the

attorney’s fees granted in connection with the motion.

Local Rule 6-144(d) provides that counsel shall seek to

obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel

or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension

becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought

on the required filing date for the pleading or other document

are looked upon with disfavor. Counsel here has not shown an

excuse or justification for failing to comply with this local

rule. Significant resources of the Court and of the moving party

have been expended.

Accordingly, the request to consider the late response IS

DENIED. The late response IS DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 287 Filed 07/15/05 Page 4 of 4