Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hollander v. Rainier School District

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 22, 2013

JONATHAN HOLLANDER, Plaintiff,
v.
RAINIER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

DENNIS J. HUBEL, Magistrate Judge.

The court previously, with the agreement of plaintiff and defendant, set a hearing on September 17, 2013, to discuss the disagreement over the terms of the protective order submitted as a result of a hearing on August 2, 2013, in which a number of motions were discussed and resolved. The August 2 hearing also resolved a number of disputes raised orally by the defendant regarding the adequacy of plaintiff's response to defendant's interrogatories and request for production of documents. The August 2 hearing also resulted in a date being set for plaintiff to appear for his deposition.

The hearing on September 17, 2013, regarding the terms of the protective order did not occur because plaintiff notified the court that he was unable to attend because his medical condition that morning required him to seek treatment urgently. The protective order discussion was rescheduled for October 7, 2013, to accommodate plaintiff's need for medical treatment. However, plaintiff was again medically unable to attend the October 7 hearing. Plaintiff notified the court of this that morning in an email he left with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. All attempts by the court to communicate with the plaintiff about a new date for the protective order discussion have been unsuccessful.

Resolution of the protective order terms is a necessary condition precedent to plaintiff producing what the court has ordered him to produce to the defendant. That production is necessary prior to plaintiff's deposition. The court is advised that the attempt to go forward with the plaintiff's deposition resulted in plaintiff leaving the deposition before its conclusion because of a dispute about the questions being asked. That dispute has resulted in the several motions being filed which remain pending as a result of the court not hearing from plaintiff about a date for the resolution of the issues which are accumulating in this case.

The court currently has a hearing scheduled for October 30, 2013, at 10:00 AM to address (1) plaintiff's motion [69] to limit or terminate his deposition; (2) defendant's motion [71] for an extension of time in which to file a response/reply to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (3) defendant's motion [75] to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The court will also take up the protective order dispute and related issues on October 30.

By October 25, 2013, at 4:00 p.m., plaintiff must confirm, in writing, that he is medically able to attend that hearing and address the reasonably prompt prosecution of his claims from this point forward, or notify the court he cannot attend the hearing at all and why. Assuming plaintiff can attend the hearing on October 30, it will proceed and resolve the motions set for that date, and the issues about the protective order. If plaintiff cannot or does not attend on October 30, or does not notify the court about his attendance on October 30 by October 25th, plaintiff should be prepared for the court to schedule a hearing to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, and whether such a dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The hearing on October 30, 2013 shall be in person, in court, unless a party requests in writing permission to attend by telephone, and receives permission to do so for good cause shown.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.