Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01585-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Becky Barnes-Boers
Plaintiff
Tractor Supply Company
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Becky Barnes-Boers,

Plaintiff,

v.

Tractor Supply Company, a

Delaware Corporation; and 

Does 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01585-GEB-CMK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The August 1, 2013 Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on November 25, 2013, and required the parties to file a joint 

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

scheduling conference. The August 1, 2013 Order further required 

that a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint 

report could be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than November 25, 2013, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against her and/or her counsel 

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or her counsel is at fault, 

and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is 

 

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of 

Case 2:13-cv-01585-GEB-CMK Document 7 Filed 11/19/13 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

requested, it will be held on January 21, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., 

just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that 

date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2013

 

sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where 

the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” In re Sanction of Baker, 744 

F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). 

Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon 

clients. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:13-cv-01585-GEB-CMK Document 7 Filed 11/19/13 Page 2 of 2