Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-67/pdf.json

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING

(Doc. 699) RE: MOTION TO

COMPEL COMPLIANCE (Doc. 679)

Old Date: 1/18/08

New Date: 2/29/08

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: 7 ~ 6 Floor th

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with prior court

orders and requests for an evidentiary hearing and for sanctions

against defendants and their counsel regarding failure to comply

with rules and orders to complete discovery (Doc. 679), filed

September 27, 2007, was previously continued from November 30,

2007 to January 18, 2008, pursuant to the Court’s minute order

(Doc. 692), filed November 28, 2007, to allow plaintiffs’

compliance with Local Rule 37-251. Plaintiffs have requested a

further continuance from January 18, 2008 to February 29, 2008

(Doc. 699).

The Court, having reviewed both Plaintiffs’ request to

continue (Doc. 699), as well as the declaration of Carole

Woodruff in support thereof (Doc. 700), filed January 14, 2008,

determines good cause has been shown to grant the continuance.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 702 Filed 01/15/08 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

Further, the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ argument that

they are making efforts to comply with the Court’s direction of

November 28, 2007 (Doc. 692) to prepare and file a joint

statement regarding the discovery disputes pursuant to Local Rule

37-251, which is good. Plaintiffs’ are reminded, however, of

subsection (d) thereof:

(d) Failure to Meet or Obtain Joint Statement. If counsel for

the moving party is unable, after a good faith effort, to secure the

cooperation of counsel for the opposing party in arranging the

required conference, or in preparing and executing the required 

joint statement, counsel for the moving party may file and serve an

affidavit so stating, setting forth the nature and extent of counsel's

efforts to arrange the required conference or procure the required

joint statement, the opposing counsel's responses or refusals to

respond to those efforts, the issues to be determined at the hearing,

and the moving party's contentions with regard to the issues,

including any briefing in respect thereto. Refusal of any counsel to

participate in a discovery conference, or refusal without good cause

to execute the required joint statement, shall be grounds, in the

discretion of the Court, for entry of an order adverse to the party

represented by counsel so refusing or adverse to counsel.

See L.R. 11-110.

Emphasis added by Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ request to continue the hearing date of

January 18, 2008 is GRANTED; and

2. The hearing is CONTINUED from January 18, 2008 to

February 29, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Snyder.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 702 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 2