UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

__________________________________________ ) ANDREA PETERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1326 ( RW R) ) ARCHSTONE, ) ) Def endant. ) __________________________________________)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION On Octobe r 6, 2009, this matter wa s ref err ed to Mag istrate Judge A lan Kay for the pur

pose of re solving the pa

rties’ discove ry

disputes. As of Novembe r 18, 2009, there wer e 11 discove ry related motions pending, a nd both parties had r equeste d a hea ringon one or more of their respe ctive motions. On October 14, 2009, Mag istrate Judge K ay enter ed a Minute O rder

g ranting Arc hstone’s re quest for a n emer g ency

hearing [Dkt. # 65], setti ngthe hea ringon October

23, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7, at which time he would hea r ar guments on Archstone ’s

emer g ency

motion to quash deposition not ices a nd for a protec tive order

[Dkt. # 65] , its mot ion to compel plaintiff’ s deposition and for sa nctions [Dkt. # 59] , and on plaintiff’ s motion for a protec tive order

[Dkt. # 62] , which wa s construed a s plaintiff’s opposition to Archstone’s motion to compel her

deposition and for sa

nctions. Mag istrate Judge K ay resc heduled the he aringat plaintiff’s re quest [Dkt. # 68] for Nove mber 3, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7. On November

2, 2009, he ente red a

minute order to c onfirm that the hea ringwould proce ed on the followingday

as sche duled. Arc hstone’s counse l appea red; plaintiff did not. On Nove mber 23,2

2009, the Court issued an orde r to show ca use why this civil action should not be dism issed for plaintiff’s fa ilure to prosec ute. Plaintiff repre sents that she “ne ither ar bitrarily nor bra zenly

disreg arde d the Court Orde r” setting the November

3, 2009 motions hearing . Pl.’s Resp. to C ourt Orde r to Show Cause (“ Pl.’s Resp.”) ¶ 2. She states that she “ was surpr ised by the Orde r” be cause , at that time, she believe d that her motions for a

chang e of ve nue and f

or Mag istrate Judge K ay ’s re cusal [Dkt. # 69] wer e still pendingand believe d they opera ted to suspend all proc eeding s and to ca ncel the he aring

. Id

. ¶ 4; see id. ¶¶ 11, 17. Plaintiff is mistaken, as ne ither belief has any basis in fac t or law. The undersigned denie d plaintiff’s motion to chang e venue [Dkt. # 71] and Mag istrate Judge K ay denied he r motion for re cusal on Oc tober 23, 2009 [Dkt. # 72] , eleve n cale ndar da y s befor e the schedule d motions hearing . Although pla intiff filed a notice of intent to seek r econside ration of these ruling s [Dkt. # 73] on October 26, 2009, she did not file her motion for rec onsideration until November

10, 2009 [Dkt. # 78] , seven da y s after the sche duled hea

ring . Moreove r, plaintiff c ites to no rule, statute, ca se or or der that filing a motion to chang e venue or for rec usal or filinga notice of intent to see k rec onsideration oper ates to suspend or c ance l a hea ringorder ed by

the court. To the c ontrary , Mag istrate Judge K ay issued a minute orde r on Nove mber 2, 2009, to confirm that the N ovember 3, 2009 hearing w as to take pla ce a s scheduled. Fur ther, plaintiff r epre sents that she “ma de multiple effor ts to obtain clarification” by contac ting the unde rsig ned’s c urre nt and forme r Courtroom Deputy Clerks, Mag istrate Judge Kay ’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk, and Ma g istrate Judge K ay ’s chambers staff on November

2 and November

3, 2009. Pl.’s Resp. ¶¶ 5, 14. In addition, plaintiff repr esents that she “ place d a courte sy call to def

endant[’s] counsel” on Nove mber 2, 2009, “ to advise her that it was doubtful3

that plaintiff would be tra velingfrom the Ne w York a rea to Washington, DC for a hearing a t 10:30 a.m. the followingmorning .” Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff “re spectfully submits t hat [she] has followed the r equire d court proc edure s” by making“multiple effor

ts to obtain clarification that the

case was suspende d” such that she “did not . . . willfully disreg ard the court set he aring .” Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain “clar ification” by contac ting c ourt staff do not e x cuse he r absenc e. The rele vant cour t orders se t and conf

irmed a motions hearing f or Nove mber 3, 2009, befor e Mag istrate Judge K ay in Courtroom 7, and no court or der dire cted other wise. Nothingin plaintiff’s re sponse to the orde r to show ca use or in the doc ket of this case ref lects any attempt by plaintiff to obtain leave not to appear in person at the N ovember 3, 2009 motions hearing . Her failure to appea

r inconve nience d the Court and ca used the opposingparty

to incur costs assoc iated with its appeara

nce. “The authority

of a c ourt to dismis s sua sponte for lack of prosec ution has g ener ally been considere d an inher ent power , g overne d not by rule or statute but by

the control ne cessa

rily vested in courts to manag e their own aff airs so as to ac hieve the or derly and expeditious dispos ition of

case s.” Link v. W

abash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) ( citations and interna l quotation marks omitted); seeL ocal Civil Rule 83.23 (authorizing dismissal of a civil ac tion for fa ilure to prosec ute either

on an adve rse pa

rty ’s motion or on the Court’s own motion). Acc ording ly , the order to show cause will be discharg ed and this civil ac tion will be dism issed for plaintiff’ s failure to prosecute . All pendingmotions wil l be denied a s moot. An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion. Signed this 4 day

of January , 2010. th /s/ RI CHARD W. R OB ERTS United States District J udg e