Jeremy Miller v. Ohm Sanker Management, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a defendant's counsel's failure to appear at a status conference and respond to discovery requests, finding the excuses unsatisfactory but granting a final opportunity to comply. The court discharged the order to show cause, compelled the defendant to respond to specific discovery requests by September 30, 2026, and warned of personal sanctions for non-compliance.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Discharge of the Order to Show Cause (OSC)“The Court therefore DISCHARGES the OSC.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and its discretion under Rule 16 to modify scheduling orders. While the court found the excuses unsatisfactory, it chose to grant a final opportunity to comply rather than imposing immediate sanctions, which is a permissible exercise of discretion to ensure compliance before punishing non-compliance. |
Compelling Defendant's Response to Discovery Requests“The Court ORDERS Mr. Weiser to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, including Interrogatories Set Two and Set Three, and Requests for Production Set Two, by close of business on September 30, 2026.” | agree with court The court is authorized to compel discovery responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). The order specifies the exact requests and a deadline, which is procedurally correct. |
Imposition of Prospective Sanctions for Non-Compliance“Finally, the Court ORDERS that, should Mr. Weiser fail to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, he shall personally pay sanctions of $2,500 to Mr. Clefton, in compensation for Plaintiff's fees incurred in pursuing responses to the instant discovery requests.” | agree with court The court correctly cites Grimes v. City & Cty. of S.F. for the proposition that magistrate judges may impose prospective sanctions under Rule 37 to enforce compliance. The sanction is conditioned on future non-compliance, which is a standard and appropriate use of this power. |
Extension of Discovery Deadline“The discovery deadline is extended from September 28, 2026, to September 30, 2026.” | agree with court The court has inherent authority to modify scheduling orders under Rule 16(b). Extending the deadline by two days to align with the new discovery compliance deadline is a reasonable administrative adjustment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the issues (failure to appear, failure to respond to discovery), applies the appropriate rules (Rule 37 for sanctions, Rule 36 for deemed admissions), and cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Grimes) for the magistrate judge's power to impose prospective sanctions. The court's decision to grant a final opportunity to comply before imposing sanctions is a reasonable exercise of discretion. The extension of the discovery deadline is a logical administrative consequence of the new compliance deadline.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY MILLER, Case No.: 25cv1492-JO (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DISCHARGING ORDER TO 13 v. SHOW CAUSE; (2) COMPELLING DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 14 OHM SANKER MANAGEMENT, INC., PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS; 15 Defendant. AND (3) EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE 16 17 18 On September 15, 2026, the Court ordered Defendant’s attorney Frank Weiser to 19 show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear on behalf of 20 defendant Ohm Sanker Management, Inc. at a court-ordered telephonic status 21 conference scheduled to take place earlier that day. ECF No. 27. The Court directed Mr. 22 Weiser to file a response to the order to show cause (OSC) no later than September 21, 23 2026, and scheduled a hearing on the OSC, and a continued status conference, for 24 September 23, 2026. Id. 25 Mr. Weiser filed a response to the OSC on September 22, 2026, one day after his 26 deadline. See ECF No. 29. He attributed his failure to appear at the status conference to 27 a calendaring error, and to his ongoing health issues. See id. at 2. At the status 1 || conference held on September 23, 2026, Mr. Weiser also attributed his failure to timely 2 respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests to his ongoing health issues. 3 The Court finds Mr. Weiser’s excuses unsatisfactory; nevertheless, as counsel 4 || were instructed during the September 23, 2026 status conference, the Court will afford 5 ||Mr. Weiser a final opportunity to comply with Plaintiff's discovery requests before 6 imposing sanctions. The Court therefore DISCHARGES the OSC. 7 The Court ORDERS Mr. Weiser to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery 8 || requests, including Interrogatories Set Two and Set Three, and Requests for Production 9 || Set Two, by close of business on September 30, 2026.* Upon completion of these 10 || discovery requests, the Court ORDERS Mr. Weiser to file a declaration that he has 11 || complied with the Court’s order compelling his response. 12 Finally, the Court ORDERS that, should Mr. Weiser fail to respond to Plaintiff's 13 || discovery requests, he shall personally pay sanctions of $2,500 to Mr. Clefton, in 14 || compensation for Plaintiff's fees incurred in pursuing responses to the instant discovery 15 || requests. See Grimes v. City & Cty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (magistrate 16 judges “may impose prospective sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 where such sanctions are 17 || necessary to enforce compliance with a valid discovery order”). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: September 23, 2026 _ TZ 20 4 L <—{— Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 27 Because 30 days have passed since Defendant was served with Plaintiffs August 13, 2026 requests for admission, those requests are deemed admitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). 28 ||2 The discovery deadline is extended from September 28, 2026, to September 30, 2026.