1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 LAURA WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00186-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v.

9 JAMES RIVER GROUP, INCORPORATION, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 12 “Just as an attorney who always practices in state court is expected to know the rules of 13 administration and operation particular to that court, we expect an attorney practicing law in 14 federal court to become familiar with and follow rules applicable to practice in this court.” Dela 15 Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem. Health Sys., Inc.,

, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). Given that the 16 requirements and procedures are so clearly identified, it is a particularly “simple task to comply 17 with the Local Rules regarding submission of a proposed discovery plan. . . . The task of submitting 18 a proper discovery plan is further simplified when the Court has expended its resources providing 19 guidance to parties who have submitted an improper discovery plan and ordering them to submit 20 a new discovery plan.” Sierzega v. Country Preferred Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 120095, at 21 *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 22, 2013). Failure to file a discovery plan in compliance with the local rules and 22 such an order may give rise to the imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local 23 Rule IA 11-8. 24 In this case, counsel failed to comply with basic requirements for filing a discovery plan 25 even after the Court expended its resources explaining the deficiencies that needed to be corrected. 26 Compounding matters, counsel did not carefully review their judicial filings or the resulting orders. 27 Pending before the Court is an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, an order 28 that was issued after the third failed attempt at filing a discovery plan. Docket No. 25; see also 1} Docket Nos. 18, 21, 24 (discovery plans). Responses have been filed that essentially indicate that 2|| the attorneys assigned to this case have changed over time, that counsel’s offices have been short- 3] staffed, and that the attorneys were otherwise sloppy in their handling of this matter. Docket Nos. 4] 30, 32.' None of those excuses justifies the repeated failure to comply with basic elements of the 5] local rules and clear orders of the Court. 6 Given the circumstances, the Court ORDERS attorneys Sandy Van and Jeffrey Saab to 7| read the local rules in their entirety. Cf Sierzega, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 120095, at *4 (collecting cases). Declarations attesting to doing so must be filed by June 29, 2022. The Court also 9| CAUTIONS all counsel of record that they must strictly comply with the local rules and all Court 10] orders moving forward. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. In all other 11] respects, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: June 22, 2022 UD 14 4 a 6 — A, 15 Dante bons, gistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The responses also indicate that the shortcomings were not willful. The Court would certainly hope that attorneys are not willfully, inter alia, submitting filings that are “rife with errors.” Docket No. 22 at 1. Whether the shortcomings stem from willfulness is not the benchmark for determining whether monetary sanctions should be imposed. See, e.g., Hologram USA, Inc. v. 28] Pulse Evolution Corp.,

, at *2 (D. Nev. May 11, 2016) (collecting cases).