Carl L. Jimena v. Clive Standish, et al

Filing 263

ORDER regarding discovery dispute set for hearing on September 17, 2010, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/27/2010. (Timken, A)

Carl L. Jimena v. Clive Standish, et al

Doc. 263

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ­ FRESNO DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses from UBS. (Doc. 258.) During the course of presenting the most recent discovery dispute to the Court (Docs. 211, 212), the parties did not file the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement") required by Rule 251 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Instead, they each filed a separate statement regarding their respective positions as to the discovery dispute. (See Docs. 246, 248, 250, 255.) While the Court previously accommodated the parties' inability to complete a Joint Statement, the Court finds it necessary that, for purposes of the current discovery dispute (see Doc. 258), the parties file a Joint Statement. The Joint Statement shall be limited to 30 pages. The Joint Statement must also v. UBS AG BANK, INC., SWITZERLAND HEADQUARTERS, et al., CARL L. JIMENA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00367-OWW-SKO ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE SET FOR HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

methodically set forth (1) the disputed discovery request, (2) the response received, (3) the propounding party's argument why the response is inadequate, and (4) the responding party's

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

argument why the response is adequate or why further response is not required. This process should be repeated for each individual discovery request disputed. See L.R. 251.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj August 27, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2