Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00540-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tiffany Hill
Plaintiff
U.S. Bancorp
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 

TIFFANY HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. BANCORP, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-540-MCE-EFB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On November 6, 2015, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to provide responses 

to discovery requests and appear for her deposition. ECF No. 18. After being continued twice, 

the hearing on the motion is currently set for February 10, 2016. ECF No. 34. 

 Plaintiff failed to provide any response to defendant’s discovery requests, and accordingly 

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.”). Under Local Rule 251(e), 

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

before the hearing date or, in this instance, by February 3, 2016. The deadline has passed and 

plaintiff has failed to file any response to defendant’s motion. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00540-MCE-EFB Document 37 Filed 02/05/16 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

 Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to 

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules 

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even 

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Cir. 1987). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 18) is continued to February 

24, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

defendant’s motion. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, 

no later than February 17, 2016. 

 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in the granting of defendant’s motion and/or a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

 5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 22, 

2016. 

DATED: February 4, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00540-MCE-EFB Document 37 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2