Martinez

I. BACKGROUND

22 On December 17, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendant Peterson’s Motion 23 to Compel. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond to Peterson’s Request for Production No. 24 4, within 21 days from the date of service of the order, “by providing any responsive documents, 25 or a written response indicating she is not in possession of any documents 26 responsive to request number 4, to Defendant Peterson.” (Id. at 5.) 27 Following modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order and the deadline a Motion for Terminating Sanctions, asserting Plaintiff has failed to comply with her discovery obligations. (Doc. 48.) On April 1, 2025, Defendants asked the Court to vacate the dispositive motion deadline pending resolution of their motion for terminating sanctions; the motion was granted the following day. (Docs. 49 & 50.) When more than 21 days passed without a response from Plaintiff to Defendants’ pending motion for terminating sanctions, on May 5, 2025, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with the Local Rules. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff…