Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01617/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01617-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services
Defendant
Department of Public Works
Defendant
Kimberly Denise Roberts
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY DENISE ROBERTS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01617 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff Kimberly Denise Roberts appearing pro se filed the

complaint in this action against defendants City and County of San Francisco Department of

Human Services and Department of Public Works. 

 On October 13, 2006, this Court received a letter from Defendants indicating that

Plaintiff had failed to serve initial disclosures. The initial disclosures were originally due on

June 16, 2006 and the deadline was extended by this Court to July 24, 2006. Defendants’ letter

also indicates that Plaintiff has failed to respond to interrogatories, has failed meaningfully to

respond to documents requests, and has failed to appear for her deposition. The Court also

notes that Plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled ADR conference on July 20, 2006. It

therefore appears to the Court that Plaintiff has failed to comply with any discovery obligations

or to pursue prosecution of her case.

Case 3:06-cv-01617-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing,

why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s orders and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37. Plaintiff’s response shall be no later than November 3,

2006. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the matter shall be dismissed without

prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01617-JSW Document 21 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2