Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02582-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WEISKIRCHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19–cv–2582–JAM–KJN

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 27, 38, 39)

Currently under submission is defendant American Airlines’ motion for sanctions for 

plaintiffs’ violation of the court’s discovery orders. (ECF No. 27.) At the court’s instruction, and 

thanks to the association of new plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties have engaged in good faith meet 

and confer efforts to allow plaintiffs to address the underlying discovery violations as new 

counsel gets up to speed on the case. (ECF Nos. 34-38.) Defendant’s February 24, 2021 status 

report indicates that plaintiffs are making progress in this regard, and defendant renews the 

parties’ prior stipulated request to: (A) stay the proceedings for 90 days, until May 20, 2021; and 

(B) to vacate the current scheduling order, including the pretrial and trial dates. (ECF No. 38 at 3; 

see ECF No. 35 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration in response to defendant’s status 

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 40 Filed 02/26/21 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

2

report, explaining the status of plaintiffs’ document production and echoing the request for a stay 

through May 2021. (ECF No. 39 at 4.)

Although the joint letter filed by defendant refers to a mutually agreed “90-day stay of the 

litigation,” plaintiffs’ counsel states that the parties “agreed to a discovery stay through May.” 

(Compare ECF No. 35 at 2, with ECF No. 39 ¶ 13 (emphasis added).) As this matter is referred 

to the undersigned only for resolution of discovery disputes,

1

any request for a total stay of all 

proceedings in this case would have to be directed to the presiding district judge. But it is evident 

from the parties’ filings that a stay of discovery is the more suitable form of relief in this 

instance.

2

 The undersigned is authorized to grant discovery stays and finds it appropriate to grant 

such a stay here, in aid of the parties’ mutual goal of allowing both sides additional time to 

prepare and review the voluminous medical records relevant to this personal injury action. 

Accordingly, discovery in this action is hereby stayed until May 20, 2021.

The undersigned acknowledges that this stay will require adjustment of at least the 

discovery deadlines—and likely the pretrial and trial dates—established under the current 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 18 (discovery to be completed by 5/7/21).) It is not within the 

undersigned’s authority, however, to vacate the pretrial and trial dates established in Judge 

Mendez’s scheduling order. The parties are therefore advised to present to Judge Mendez their 

stipulated request to vacate or modify the current scheduling order.3

Lastly, the undersigned will, of course, rule on defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF 

No. 27) and intends to award defendant all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 

bringing its meritorious motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 19, 23.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that 

1 See E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1).

2 The parties’ joint letter refers to both (A) a stipulated deadline of April 20, 2021 for production 

of documents responsive to certain requests for production, and (B) a stay of the litigation until 

May 20, 2021. (ECF No. 35 at 2, ¶¶ 3(c) & 4(a). But a total stay of the litigation through May 

would seem to make an April discovery deadline unenforceable, as the undersigned would not be 

able to hear and resolve any interim discovery matters until the lifting of the stay. 

3 Should the current scheduling order remain in place, the undersigned will consider a stipulated 

request to modify the discovery deadlines alone. 

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 40 Filed 02/26/21 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

3

monetary sanctions should be awarded against plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. Robert Heintz for his errors 

and omissions. (ECF No. 28 at 2-3.) To aid the court in awarding all appropriate attorneys’ fees, 

defendant shall file an updated declaration of the total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs 

presently sought, along with supporting billing documentation. The original declaration and 

documentation filed concurrently with the motion for sanctions are somewhat internally 

inconsistent (ECF Nos. 27.2 & 27.3), and include reference to a potential future supplement of 

additional unbilled amounts (ECF No. 27.2 at 4:10-12), making it difficult for the court to discern 

the appropriate amount to award at present.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Discovery in this action is stayed until May 20, 2021, on which date the stay shall 

automatically lift, unless the court orders otherwise; and

2. Within 10 days of entry of this order, defendant shall file an updated declaration of the 

total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs sought in connection with its motion to compel, 

along with supporting billing documentation.

Dated: February 26, 2021

weis.2582

Case 2:19-cv-02582-JAM-KJN Document 40 Filed 02/26/21 Page 3 of 3