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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1114 DFL CMK 

vs.

ROSEVILLE CYCLES INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brought this action alleging that

he was discriminated against, in violation of the ADA and California law, when he encountered

various architectural barriers at defendants’ business establishment. Discovery motions in this

action were referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 72-302(c)(1). 

On September 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery against

defendant Cynthia Johnston, which was set for hearing on October 11, 2005. The court issued an

order on October 6, 2005 vacating the October 11, 2005 hearing and ordering defendant Cynthia

Johnston to show cause, within fifteen days why this court should not impose sanctions for her

failure to respond to discovery requests. Defendant Johnston failed to respond. On October 28,

2005, the court issued an order directing defendant Johnston to, within twenty days, produce

///

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 02/10/06 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

2

 documents and responses demanded in plaintiff’s requests for production of documents. The

court also ordered that defendant Johnston’s attorney pay within ten days, from her personal

funds, sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to plaintiff’s attorney. 

On December 12, 2005, plaintiff’s attorney filed a notice that defendant Johnston

had failed to comply with the court’s October 28, 2005 order–she had neither produced discovery

responses nor had her attorney paid the $500.00 monetary sanction.

On January 4, 2006, plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion for sanctions against

defendant Johnston, which is set for hearing on February 14, 2006. 

A review of the docket reveals that on March 15, 2005, plaintiff’s attorney, Pamela

Au Claire Nelson, filed a request for exemption from the electronic filing requirement. In her

request, plaintiff’s attorney stated that her office filed an answer on behalf of Ms. Johnston so that

no default would be taken against Ms. Johnston and that this was done pro bono. Ms. Nelson

asserted that her law office does not use computer and is not capable of electronic filing. The

court notes that Ms. Nelson has an e-mail address on file with the court, snclrndrw@yahoo.com. 

The court notes that, while performing pro bono work is laudable, it does not

relieve an attorney of record from complying with discovery or from complying with court orders. 

The court is concerned by defendant Johnston’s attorney’s lack of response in this action. 

///

///

 ///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 02/10/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of the

plaintiff’s January 4, 2006 motion for sanctions (doc. 21) on defendant Johnston’s attorney’s

attorney at P.O. Box 773, 218 South Lincoln Way, Galt, California 95632; 

2. Defendant Johnston’s Attorney, Pamela Au Claire Nelson, is directed to appear

at the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which is set for February 14, 2006 at 10:00 a.m

at the United States District Court, 2986 Bechelli Lane, Redding California. Failure to appear

may result in further sanctions. See L.R. 11-110. 

DATED: February 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 3