Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2530 MCE EFB

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case was before the undersigned on May 16, 2007, on defendant Dr. Roche’s motion

to compel plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories. Jeffrey Vincent appeared as counsel for

defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff’s

counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the

hearing.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark Ravis, timely filed a response to the order to show cause in

which he avers that he mistakenly believed that defendant was going to take the motion off

calendar. Plaintiff’s counsel claims he thought he had provided defendant with all responses to

defendant’s discovery requests, only to discover later that he had inadvertently failed to respond

to defendant’s interrogatory no. 7. Although the court is stymied by this explanation given

plaintiff counsel’s participation in preparing the joint statement one week prior to the discovery

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 52 Filed 07/09/07 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

1

 The joint statement clearly outlined, from defendant’s perspective, how plaintiff’s

discovery responses were deficient, and also contained plaintiff’s counsel response to those

alleged deficiencies. 

2

hearing,1

 the court hereby discharges its May 21, 2007, order to show cause.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 52 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2