Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02016-IEG-AJB

Document 25

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The requirements of Rule 26(a) were also explained to Mr. Webster during the Case Management conference with the Court on February 8, 2008. 1
1

cal

) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) J. FRANK WEBSTER, aka, MR. HOT DOG, ) ) aka, UNCLE FRANK, ) Defendant. ) ) STEVEN SCHUSSLER; SCHUSSLER CREATIVE, INC.,

Civil No.07cv2016 IEG (AJB) Order Re Extension of Time For Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) Disclosures

The Plaintiff's counsel contacted the Court regarding two discovery disputes and a conference call was held on February 13, 2008 with the Court's law clerk, Plaintiff's counsel and the Defendant, Mr. Webster who is proceeding pro per. The first issue raised by Plaintiff's counsel was the adequacy of Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosures, which were due on January 25, 2008. The parties discussed at length the requirements of Rule 26(a)1 and Mr. Webster agreed to produce disclosures in compliance with the requirements of Rule 26(a) by February 19, 2008. No further extensions of time will be granted for Mr. Webster's Rule 26(a). The Court takes this opportunity to remind Mr. Webster of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as his obligations to comply with all deadlines set by this Court. Mr.

07cv2016

Case 3:07-cv-02016-IEG-AJB

Document 25

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 2 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

Webster is warned that continued failure to comply with requirements set forth in the Federal Rules or set forth in Orders from this Court, will result in this Court recommending the imposition of sanctions.2 The second issue raised by Plaintiff's counsel was with regard to the production of documents by Mr. Webster on February 25, 2008 at his deposition, as well as responses and documents which are also due to be produced on February 25, 2008 in response to Plaintiff's Document Requests. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to allow Mr. Webster to email his responses to the Document Requests, as well as the documents themselves, so long as Mr. Webster properly referenced which Document Requests each referred to. Mr. Webster agreed to comply with Plaintiff's request and to provide his written responses to the Document Requests by February 25, 2008, and to produce as many of the documents as possible via email to Plaintiff's counsel by February 25, 2008, with rolling production to continue until all responsive documents have been produced. Mr. Webster was instructed to immediately contact Plaintiff's counsel with any questions or concerns regarding his responses or document production, so that the parties can work together to find a solution. Mr. Webster was also instructed to contact Plaintiff's counsel and this Court and prior to the passage of a deadline, if he anticipates the need for any extensions of time to meet deadline set by this Court in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2008 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court

G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose, 577 F.2d 645 (9th Cir.1978) (Where counsel or party has acted willfully or in bad faith in failing to comply with rules of discovery or court orders enforcing rules or in flagrant disregard of those rules or orders, trial court has discretion to dismiss action or render a judgment by default against party responsible for noncompliance.); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 37(b).
K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\SCHUSSLER\07cv2016.Order.fol.t-disc.conf.wpd

2

2

07cv2016