Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04708/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04708-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RSCC HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04708-BLF (NC)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 25

On May 8, 2019, plaintiff Scott Johnson moved for discovery sanctions against 

defendants RSCC Holdings, LLC and N&LS Inc., citing Defendants’ failure to provide 

their initial disclosures by the February deadline. See Dkt. No. 22. Defendants’ response 

to Johnson’s motion was due on May 13, 2019. On May 15, the Court reminded 

Defendants to respond to Johnson’s motion and sua sponte extended Defendants’ deadline 

to respond to May 22. See Dkt. No. 23. When Defendants again did not respond, the 

Court issued an order to show cause requiring Defendants to serve their initial disclosures 

and explain why they had repeatedly missed deadlines. See Dkt. No. 24. Defendants’ 

response was due on May 31.

Defendants did not respond until June 2. See Dkt. No. 25. And in that response, 

Defendants failed to explain why they did not timely serve their initial disclosures or 

respond to Johnson’s motion. See id.

Case 5:18-cv-04708-BLF Document 26 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court now gives Defendants one final chance to explain:

1. Why it took almost four months past the initial disclosure deadline to serve 

their initial disclosures; and

2. Why Defendants did not respond to Johnson’s motion and two Court orders.

Defendants must file their response in writing by June 10, 2019. The Court sets a hearing 

on this order to show cause for June 12, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. Johnson’s counsel may appear 

by telephone. Defendants’ counsel may not appear by telephone and is ORDERED to 

appear in person. Because this is not the first case where Defendants’ counsel has failed to 

timely respond to Court orders or motion practice (see Brooke v. Saratoga Motel, No. 18-

cv-6422-NC, Dkt. No. 25 (May 29, 2019)), the Court warns Defendants’ counsel that 

failure to comply with this order may result in referral for investigation to the Standing 

Committee on Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California under Civil 

Local Rule 11-6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2019 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-04708-BLF Document 26 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 2