Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02786/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02786-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Kimberly T. Le
Defendant
Bach Thuoc Vu
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BACH THUOC VU, in his individual and 

representative capacity as Trustee—Vole 

Irrevocable Family Trust; KIMBERLY T 

LE, and Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2786-JAM-EFB 

ORDER FOR SANCTIONS 

 On September 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Kimberly T Le to 

provide responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s motion was 

ultimately set for hearing on October 14, 2015. ECF No. 15. As addressed below, defendant 

failed to respond to either the discovery requests or the motion to compel.

 Because defendant failed to provide any response to plaintiff’s discovery requests Local 

Rule 251(e) applies. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e) (providing that the requirement that the parties 

file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement does not apply “when there has been a complete 

and total failure to respond to a discovery request or order.”). Local Rule 251(e) requires a 

responding party to file a response to the discovery motion at issue no later than seven days 

before the hearing date or, in this instance, by October 7, 2015. Defendant failed to timely file 

Case 2:14-cv-02786-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 11/05/15 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

either an opposition or statement of non-opposition by that date. Accordingly, on October 9, 

2015, the court continued the hearing to November 4, 2015, ordered defendant to file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion by October 21, 2015, and 

ordered defendant to show cause, in writing by October 21, 2015, why sanctions should not be 

imposed based on her failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 

plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 16. 

As with the discovery request and motion to compel, defendant failed to respond to that 

order. 

 Just prior to the November 4 hearing (i.e., near the close of business on November 3), and 

well after the court had completed its preparation for the hearing, plaintiff filed a notice 

withdrawing his motion, stating that the matter was now moot. ECF No. 20. Although the 

parties resolved their discovery dispute, that fact did not moot the order to show cause for 

violation of the Local Rules. Nor does it absolve defendant of her obligation to respond to the 

court’s October 9, 2015 order to show cause. As defendant’s counsel has failed to provide any 

justification for his failure to comply with the court’s local rules, and has failed to comply with 

the court’s October 9 order, monetary sanctions are warranted.1 

 Accordingly, defendant is sanctioned in the amount of one hundred fifty ($150) dollars. 

This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the effective 

date of this order. 

DATED: November 4, 2015. 

 

 1

 Defendant’s current counsel did not file a request to be substituted as attorney for 

defendant until October 21, 2015, the date a response to the order to show cause was due. See

ECF Nos. 17, 18. Regardless, defendant filed nothing in response to the motion or the order. 

Further, since substituting into the case defendant’s current attorney has not filed a response to 

the October 9 order, nor sought an extension of time to do so. 

Case 2:14-cv-02786-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2