Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00878-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; UMG )

RECORDINGS, INC.; ARISTA RECORDS, )

LLC; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, ) 

) 2:06-cv-0878-GEB-KJM 

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

v. ) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

) CONFERENCE

TIMOTHY HAAS, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On July 6, 2006, an Order issued requiring Plaintiffs to

show cause (“OSC”) why sanctions should not be imposed for their

failure to file a timely status report, and continuing the status

conference to August 14, 2006. The OSC also required Plaintiffs to

file a status report fourteen days prior to the status conference.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the OSC on July 13, 2006, in

which they state “[a stipulation to extend Defendant’s time to respond

to the Complaint] was duly filed with the Court, [and] Plaintiffs’

counsel mistakenly thought that would be sufficient to alert the Court

as to the status of the case.” Plaintiffs’ response assumes the Court

Case 2:06-cv-00878-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/02/06 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

The OSC process is time-consuming and requires me to 1

assure myself that sanctions are appropriate in a specific

amount. It is hoped that counsel comply with future scheduling

dates so that sanctions jurisprudence need not be invoked again. 

Obviously, it is incumbent upon counsel practicing in federal

court to follow applicable practice.

2

has an obligation to look at the court docket for the purpose of

gleaning whether an excuse existed for Plaintiffs’ failure to file a

timely status report. If Plaintiffs opined that the status report

filing date should have been continued, Plaintiffs should have timely

sought a continuance. Plaintiffs are warned that sanctions are not

issued this time only because of the weightiness of the Court’s

docket.1

In their status report filed July 31, 2006, Plaintiffs

represent that although Defendant has not yet filed an answer, “[t]he

parties . . . are in contact . . . and are hopeful that they may be

able to reach a settlement.” Plaintiffs also “request that the Court

vacate the status conference . . . and grant the parties sixty (60)

days to finalize a settlement.” Plaintiffs’ request to vacate the

status conference is denied because it is inconsistent with the

judge’s Rule 16 case management obligations. But the status

conference will be continued to November 6, 2006, to provide the

parties the requested sixty (60) day time period for them to ascertain 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00878-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/02/06 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

The status conference will remain on calendar, because 2

Plaintiffs’ mere representation that this action could settle

does not justify ignoring the scheduling contemplated under Rule

16. Cf. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)

(indicating that a representation that claims have been settled

does not necessarily establish the existence of a binding

settlement agreement). 

3

whether a settlement can be reached. The parties shall file a joint 2

status report no later than fourteen days prior to the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00878-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3