Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00123/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00123-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERB N. COLLINS AND 

REBECCA W. COLLINS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs. CIV-S-06-0123-LKK/GGH 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for November 9,

2006, was plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. James Wilson appeared for the City of

Sacramento and various defendants. Attorney for the moving party, Stewart Katz, made no

appearance. 

This is the third motion to compel filed by plaintiffs which has not proceeded

beyond the initial notice of motion. Plaintiffs previously filed a motion to compel for hearing on

August 10, 2006, for which a joint statement pursuant to E.D.Cal.L.R. 37-251 was required. 

None was filed, so the court continued the hearing and told the parties it would ascertain at that

time which party was responsible for the failure. Plaintiffs later withdrew their motion and the

hearing was vacated. Plaintiffs noticed a second motion to compel for November 2, 2006, which

was vacated by this court after the parties did not file a joint statement pursuant to order, and

plaintiffs’ counsel filed no declaration regarding attempts to obtain a joint statement. The instant

Case 2:06-cv-00123-JAM -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/06 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

2

notice of motion was filed on October 16, 2006. This notice of motion was not supported by any

briefing, and a joint statement was not filed, despite plaintiffs’ representation in their notice that

they would file one three days prior to the hearing. 

At the hearing, defense counsel stated that he did not know why plaintiffs’

counsel did not appear, but that he had produced most of the sought discovery, and was in the

process of responding to a few remaining requests. As a result of plaintiffs’ failure to appear at

the hearing, their motion is vacated with prejudice from the calendar.

Due to plaintiffs’ failure to follow through after repeatedly filing motions and

causing an inordinate amount of work by this court, plaintiffs’ counsel is now ordered to show

cause why he should not be sanctioned $150 for failing to follow Local Rules and repeatedly

wasting this court’s time. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery is vacated with prejudice from the

November 9, 2006 calendar.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall show cause within ten days of this order why he

should not be sanctioned $150 for his failure to follow the Local Rules.

DATED: 11/14/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Collins0123.osc.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-00123-JAM -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2