Robillard v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Catalina Robillard, Case No. 2:23-cv-01684-JAD-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: CAUSE SHOWN 5 vs. 6 United States of America, 7 Defendant. 8 9 On November 18, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF 39)(“OSC”) in the 10 above-captioned action. The Court noted that the case is over a year old, and that the parties had failed 11 to hold a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) initial conference and submit a stipulated discovery plan, 12 13 in violation of LR 26-1(a) and the Court’s August 23, 2024, Order (ECF 37). Id. The Court ordered the 14 parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, or other sanctions be imposed. See ECF 15 No. 39. The Court further ordered the parties to file a proposed stipulated discovery plan and scheduling 16 order in compliance with LR 26-1(b) by December 2, 2024. Id. 17 The parties complied with the OSC. They each filed response briefs (ECF Nos. 40 and 42) and 18 filed proposed stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 41), which the Court addressed 19 separately. The Court has reviewed the parties’ responses (ECF Nos. 40 and 42) to the OSC and finds 20 that the parties have shown cause. Therefore, the Court will not impose sanctions at this time. 21 The Court, however, warns the parties that any continued lagging cannot be tolerated. The 22 courts have a heavy case load and are tasked with managing and moving those cases along. Stalled 23 cases burden the courts and backlog dockets. Plaintiff’s out-of-state counsel, George R. Arrants, Esq., 24 is further cautioned about his failure to review this Court’s Local Rules or completely appraise himself 25 of the docket entries. “[O]ut-of-state counsel have a duty to familiarize themselves and comply with local rules….” DeLew v. Nevada, No. 2:00-CV-00460-LRL, 2010 WL 11636127, at *9 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 1 2010). Counsel also has a duty to appraise himself of the court’s docket. Kuhn v. Sulzer Orthopedics, 2 Inc., 498 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2007). 3 4 For cause shown, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the parties have shown cause why sanctions should not issue and have 6 satisfied the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 39). 7 DATED: December 4, 2024. 8 9 _______________________________________ 10 Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25