Solaiman Saifi v. Calnet, Inc. et al

Filing 49

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why Motion Should Not Be Denied as Moot and Untimely 42 (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

ED CV 15-702-VAP (SPx)

Title

Solaiman Saifi, et al. v. Calnet, Inc, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 29, 2016

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly Carter

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Motion Should Not Be Denied
as Moot and Untimely [42]

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. Docket no. 42. Plaintiff
noticed the motion for hearing on February 23, 2016; however, the court has since taken
the hearing off calendar. The motion was not filed in the form of a joint stipulation as
required by Local Rule 37-2; but it was accompanied by a declaration stating defense
counsel had failed to provide their portion of the joint stipulation in a timely manner in
accordance with L.R. 37-2.2, thus permitting plaintiff to file a motion without a joint
stipulation, with Local Rules 6-1, 7-9, and 7-10 governing. See L.R. 37-2.4
In the motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant Calnet, Inc. to
produce documents responsive to certain document requests. On February 2, 2016,
defendant Calnet filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, contending plaintiff failed to
respond to defendant’s request for an extension of time to file its portion of the joint
stipulation and several requests to further meet on the disputed discovery issues.
Defendant claims plaintiff has violated the spirit of Local Rule 37-1, that most of the
concerns raised in plaintiff’s motion have been resolved, and the only two remaining
genuine disputes may be resolved through further meeting and conferring.
Specifically, according to defendant the only remaining issues are the proposed
email search terms and disclosure of the roster of potential class members. Defendant
presents persuasive arguments supporting its contention that the terms proposed by
plaintiff are overbroad and that plaintiff has failed to participate in the required meet and
confer in an effort to appropriately tailor these terms. Defendant also voices reasonable
privacy concerns related to disclosures of personal information of individuals not yet
parties to this action. But plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s intent to release
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

ED CV 15-702-VAP (SPx)

Date

Title

February 29, 2016

Solaiman Saifi, et al. v. Calnet, Inc, et al.

documents is not equivalent to actual compliance with delivery of discovery is equally
compelling.
Before addressing the merits of the Motion to Compel, however, the court
questions whether it may appropriately reach the merits, for two reasons. First, the class
certification discovery cut-off was January 25, 2016, as set forth in the June 29, 2015
Civil Trial Scheduling Order. The same order provides that the discovery cut-off is “the
last day for hearing any discovery motion.” Although the discovery at issue also appears
to pertain to the merits, since this is the class certification phase of the case, it appears
the Motion to Compel – filed only ten days before the cut-off, and with a hearing noticed
after the cut-off – is untimely.
Second, even if the Motion to Compel is timely, on February 26, 2016, the court
granted the motion in the related case of Atiqi, et al. v. Acclaim Technical Services, et al.,
ED CV 14-628-VAP (SPx), to consolidate the Atiqi case with this and other related
cases. In light of the consolidation, it is unclear what, if any, discovery issues remain
unresolved, the appropriate cut-off date for the discovery previously propounded, or if
plaintiff now intends to move forward with a Belaire-West opt-out notice.
Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, on or before March 7,
2016, why the Motion to Compel should not be denied as moot and untimely. If plaintiff
withdraws the motion on or before March 7, 2016, the order to show cause will be
discharged. If counsel for the parties believe it would be helpful to have a telephonic
conference to discuss this matter, they may contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom
deputy to schedule one.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2