Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Having reviewed counsel’s written response to the Order

to Show Cause, none of the reasons proffered by counsel

adequately explain why a response to plaintiff’s letter was

not timely filed. The fact that defense counsel is having

difficulty communicating with plaintiff does not justify

creating unnecessary difficulties for the court in resolving

the dispute by not filing a timely response. 

If defense counsel wishes to avoid a hearing on whether

she should be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for her

failings, she may contribute $100.00 to St. Anthony’s Dining

Room, 121 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 or Glide

Memorial Church Food Program, 330 Ellis, San Francisco, CA

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 133 Filed 01/17/08 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

94102. If proof of payment is received in chambers on or

before January 28, 2008 the Order To Show Cause will be

discharged and there will be no need for a hearing on January

30, 2008. There will be a hearing on the other matter

scheduled for that date.

Plaintiff is admonished to refrain from injecting

personal attacks into these discovery disputes. Remarks such

as “you are a really good match for Phil Green” and “[e]ither

you have not read those pages - starting with the first

responses to discovery - or you do not understand the English

language well enough” are entirely unproductive. They would

not be tolerated from counsel and henceforth will not be

tolerated from plaintiff. It should be apparent to the

parties that engaging in these lengthy exchanges of posturing

e-mails is counterproductive and will not further the goal of

conducting discovery or resolving discovery disputes. If

plaintiff continues to engage in such rhetoric, she may be

subject to sanctions for failing to meet and confer in good

faith.

Dated: January 17, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\ORDER RE OSC.FINAL.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 133 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2