Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05079/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05079-15/pdf.json

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

C 09-05079

ORDER CONTINUING 1/20/11 HEARING AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

I.E.I COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCE CULTURAL EDUCATION, et

al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-05079 PJH (LB)

ORDER CONTINUING JANUARY 20,

2011 HEARING AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On December 9, 2010, this court issued an order finding that Defendants had violated Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and the court's prior discovery orders by not responding to

Plaintiffs' interrogatories and document requests. 12/09/10 Order, ECF No. 101 at 4. At the

December 9, 2010 discovery hearing, Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to file a motion for

sanctions. As a result, the court's December 9 order established the following briefing schedule for

Plaintiffs' motion:

Motion due date: December 16, 2010

Opposition due date: December 30, 2010

Optional reply due date: January 6, 2011

Hearing date: January 20, 2011, 11 a.m.

See id. at 5.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions on December 16, 2010. Motion, ECF No. 103. In their

Case 4:09-cv-05079-PJH Document 108 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 2
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

C 09-05079

ORDER CONTINUING 1/20/11 HEARING AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

motion, Plaintiffs ask the court to impose case dispositive sanctions, among other things, as a

consequence of Defendants' failure to cooperate in discovery. Id. at 16-22. At the November 18 and

December 9, 2010 discovery hearings and in the court's November 19 and December 9, 2010 orders,

the court informed Defendants that failure to comply with discovery orders could result in sanctions

including case dispositive sanctions. See 11/18/10 Tr., ECF No. 99 at 36:23 – 37:5; 12/9/10 Tr.,

ECF No. 106 at 11:6 – 12:5; 11/19/10 Order, ECF No. 96 at 5; 12/9/10 Order, ECF No. 101 at 5.

On December 29, 2010, the district court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw from the

case as counsel of record for Defendants. 12/29/10 Order, ECF No. 107 at 1. Because one of the

defendants is a corporation that may not appear in the case without counsel, the district court ordered

Defendants to provide notice of substitution of counsel no later than February 4, 2011. Id.

In light of the gravity of the sanctions requested by Plaintiffs in this case, the court HEREBY

CONTINUES oral argument on Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and extends the corresponding

briefing schedule to provide Defendants with sufficient opportunity to acquire new counsel and to

file an opposition to the motion. The court sets the following schedule:

Opposition due date: February 17, 2011

Optional reply due date: February 24, 2011

Hearing date: March 17, 2011, 11 a.m.

The hearing set for January 20, 2011 is HEREBY VACATED. This briefing schedule will

remain in effect regardless of whether Defendants obtain new counsel. The court again warns

Defendants that failure to comply with the court's orders may result in sanctions that may include

entry of default judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2011 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05079-PJH Document 108 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2