Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, )

) CIV. S-04-2154 GEB PAN

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

DEL TACO, INC. dba DEL TACO #115; ) 

PHILIPPE DURAND GORRY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On June 20, 2005, Plaintiff James Sanford filed a “Request

for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge

[Nowinski’s June 15, 2005] Ruling.” In the request, Plaintiff argues

“the magistrate [judge]’s conclusion that plaintiff’s counsel didn’t

meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(b) was contrary to law”

since “[i]t is undisputed that plaintiff’s counsel sent two meet and

confer letters, it’s undisputed that the parties’ counsel met and

conferred regarding discovery responses every two weeks, and it’s

undisputed that Magistrate [judge] Nowinski was aware of these facts.” 

(Pl.’s Req. for Recons. at 2.) 

However, Defendant Del Taco’s counsel, Lisa A. Mathaisel,

declares that neither she nor any other member of her law firm has met

and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 29 Filed 06/28/05 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

2

disputes in this matter. (Mathaisel Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Therefore,

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Nowinski’s

June 15 Order is denied. 

Further, Ms. Mathaisel requests that the Court award

sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to Local Rule 

11-110, “for Plaintiff’s blatant noncompliance with the Local Rules in

an amount which the Court deems appropriate.” Local Rule 11-110

provides that “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Rules . . . may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent

power of the Court.” L.R. 11-110 (emphasis added). Since Ms.

Mathaisel has not indicated the precise basis for an award of

sanctions, the request for sanctions is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 29 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2