Zetz v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 AUTUMN ZETZ, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00451-AWI-SAB

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 11 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOVEMBER 15, 2019 12 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ORDER

13 Defendant. (ECF No. 33)

14 FIVE DAY DEADLINE

15 On November 15, 2019, Plaintiffs’ request to seal their initial disclosures that were 16 mistakenly filed in this action was granted. (ECF No. 33.) The order provided that “[u]pon 17 receipt of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE the motion to seal documents, with the exception of 18 Exhibit A attached to the declaration of Taylor French. See L.R. 141(e).” The order issued on 19 November 15, 2019, and Plaintiffs have not filed the motion to seal as directed. 20 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 21 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 22 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 23 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 24 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 25 2000). 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days from the date of entry 27 of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why sanctions should not issue 1 | for the failure to file the motion to seal upon receipt of the November 15, 2019 order. Plaintiffs 2 | are advised that failure to show cause as required by this order may result in the issuance of 3 | sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ November 22, 2019

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28