Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01672/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01672-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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 As the Order states:

(continued...)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAVERICK RECORDING COMPANY, a )

California joint venture; ARISTA ) 2:05-cv-01672-GEB-KJM

RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited )

liability company, SONY BMG )

MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware )

general partnership; BMG MUSIC )

a New York general partnership; )

and UMB RECORDINGS, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER

v. ) AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

)

ROBIN RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Defendant. )

)

The Order filed in this action on August 19, 2005, scheduled

this case for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference on November

14, 2005, and required the parties to file a joint status report

fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. The Order further

required that a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint

report could be procured.1 Neither a joint nor individual status

Case 2:05-cv-01672-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 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

1

(...continued)

The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the Joint Status

Report does not excuse the other parties from

their obligation to timely file a status report in

accordance with this Order. In the event a party

fails to participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a

declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain

the cooperation of the other party or parties. 

Order filed Aug. 19, 2005, at 2 n. 1.

2 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” 

Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984),

cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of

attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon clients. In re

Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

report was filed.

Since a status report was not received, the judge reviewed

the file to determine whether he could discern why a report was not

filed. That review disclosed that a request to enter default was

filed on October 31, 2005. This request should have been brought to

the judge's attention in a timely-filed status report, which should

have also included information about prosecuting the default matter. 

Plaintiffs are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than

4:00 p.m. on February 6, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against

counsel and/or Plaintiff for the failure to file a timely status

report, as ordered. The written response shall state whether

Plaintiffs or their counsel is at fault and whether a hearing is

requested on the OSC.2 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on

February 21, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., just prior to the status conference,

which is rescheduled to that date. Plaintiffs shall file a status

report no later than February 6, 2006, in which Plaintiffs are only

Case 2:05-cv-01672-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 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

required to explain the status of the default issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01672-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 3