Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

NATHANIEL WEISKIRCHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19–cv–2582–JAM–KJN

ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 27)

Currently pending is defendant American Airlines’ motion for attorneys’ fees and to 

terminate this litigation as sanctions for plaintiffs’ ongoing failure to respond to discovery 

requests and violation of related court orders. (ECF No. 27.) Since that motion’s filing, 

Mr. Robin Smith has associated as counsel for plaintiffs in this case while existing counsel, 

Mr. Robert Heintz, recuperates from health problems that seemingly contributed to the discovery 

delays and violations identified by defendant. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) On January 31, 2021, plaintiffs 

filed—through Mr. Smith—an opposition to defendant’s sanctions motion in which they agree 

that monetary sanctions are warranted against Mr. Heintz, but that Mr. Heintz’s errors and 

omissions do not merit termination of plaintiffs’ case. (ECF No. 28.) Attempting to save 

plaintiffs’ case at the last minute, Mr. Smith says that he will address and correct any discovery 

responses that remain incomplete—although at the time of filing he had not yet compared the 

state of plaintiffs’ responses to the available information and documents. (ECF No. 28.3 at 4.)

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 34 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 3
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 February 5, 2021, defendant filed a reply arguing that, because plaintiffs still have not 

rectified the discovery issues and Mr. Smith gave no indication of when they might do so, the 

court should proceed to issue terminating sanctions—in addition to the attorneys’ fees, which all 

now agree are proper. (ECF No. 33.)

Given Mr. Smith’s recent addition to this case and defendant’s current insistence on the 

harshest of sanctions, the court finds it necessary to reset this matter for hearing. At present, the 

court is not inclined to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiffs whose original counsel 

appears to have been significantly compromised by health concerns for at least some of the time 

that these discovery requests and court orders have gone unaddressed. Defendant’s frustration 

with the ongoing delay is understandable, and the court agrees that if plaintiffs cannot speedily 

get their case back on track, dismissal might be required. Defendant expresses skepticism that 

Mr. Smith will be able to review the many thousands of pages of plaintiffs’ medical records and 

otherwise come up to speed on the case in a timely manner. (ECF No. 33 at 12.) But, aside from 

Mr. Smith’s initial introductory phone call, there is no indication that defendant has attempted to 

ascertain whether Mr. Smith would be willing to commit to an acceptable deadline for addressing 

the discovery concerns. 

Before the hearing, therefore, defense counsel shall engage in a good faith meet and 

confer effort with Mr. Smith to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable deadline by which plaintiffs 

will provide the outstanding discovery identified in the court’s December 4, 2020 order granting 

defendant’s original motion to compel (ECF No. 23). The parties shall then file a joint letter brief 

advising the court of the outcome of this meet and confer, and any change to defendant’s position 

on the sanctions requested. As soon as practicable, and without awaiting such meet and confer, 

plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide defense counsel with the signed medical release authorizations 

for both plaintiffs, previously ordered by the court. (ECF No. 23 at 6.) Following the hearing, 

the court will decide the motion and what sanctions beyond attorneys’ fees should be imposed.

///

///

///

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 34 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 27) is RESET for remote hearing before the 

undersigned on February 25, 2021, at 10:00 AM;

2. No later than February 19, 2021, at 12:00 PM, the parties shall file a joint letter brief of no 

more than 2 pages advising the court of the outcome of their meet and confer, and any 

change to defendant’s position on the sanctions requested; and

3. As soon as possible, but no later than February 19, 2021, plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide 

defense counsel with signed medical release authorizations for both plaintiffs, authorizing 

defendant to obtain from third parties Mr. Weiskircher’s medical records relevant to this 

suit and to obtain Ms. Weiskircher’s psychological or other mental health treatment 

records relevant to this suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2021

weis.2582

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 34 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 3