Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, et al., No. 2:20-cv-0903 KJM DB Plaintiffs, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants. 16 On April 22, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on May 6, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1), which concerns discovery motions. (ECF No. 150.) As the parties are aware, however, discovery in this action is closed. Defendants have moved before the assigned District Judge to re-open discovery, and plaintiffs have opposed that request. (ECF Nos. 143 & 145.) Moreover, the sanctions plaintiffs seek include adverse jury instructions and exclusion of evidence. (ECF No. 150-1 at 20-21.) Such sanctions are “plainly a remedy to be considered by the district judge presiding over the trial.” Kaur v. City of Lodi, No. 2:14-cv-0828 GEB AC, 2016 WL 3019313, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2016); see also Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo, No. 26 …