Mitchell v. Skyline Homes

Filing 142

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/29/2011 ORDERING that w/i 14 days, after counsel for parties have met and conferred, plaintiff shall file a letter brief on the status of 90 Motion for Sanctions; defendant may reply 7 days t hereafter; defendant's 128 Motion to Implead third party defendants is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal after resolution of the motion for class certification; defendant's 123 Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in par t; parties shall comply with the additional provisions outlined in this order related to discovery; parties are cautioned that failure to provide discoverable information in a timely manner may result in the preclusion of such evidence at trial. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

CHRISTINA MITCHELL, et al.,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SKYLINE HOMES,
Defendant.

14
15

No. CIV S-09-2241 CKD

ORDER
/

Defendant’s motion to compel and motion to implead third parties came on

16

regularly for hearing September 28, 2011. Shana Scarlett appeared for plaintiffs, Daniel Kelly

17

and Rebecca Lefler appeared for defendant, and David Cannon appeared for proposed third party

18

defendant James Hardie Building Products, Inc. Upon review of the documents in support and

19

opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, THE COURT

20

FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

21

1. Within fourteen days, after counsel for plaintiffs and defendant have met and

22

conferred, plaintiff shall file a letter brief, limited to three pages, on the status of plaintiff’s

23

request for sanctions (dkt. no. 90). Defendant may file a reply, limited to three pages, within

24

seven days thereafter.

25
26

2. Defendant’s motion to implead third party defendants (dkt. No. 128) is denied
without prejudice to its renewal after resolution of the motion for class certification. The court
1

1

finds that defendant did not unduly delay in moving to implead third party defendants and that

2

the scheduling posture of the litigation does not necessarily preclude impleader. However, in

3

light of the imminent deadline for filing the class certification motion, the court finds impleader

4

is not warranted at this time.

5
6

3. Defendant’s motion to compel (dkt. no. 123) is granted in part and denied in
part.

7
8

a. Within seven days, defendant shall submit as a corrected Exhibit 31 to
the joint statement (dkt. no. 139) a copy of the privilege log provided by plaintiffs.

9

b. No later than October 19, 2011, plaintiffs shall submit, for in camera

10

review, all documents withheld from production on the ground of work product protection. Said

11

documents shall be bate-stamped.

12

c. Within fourteen days, plaintiffs shall provide a supplemental response

13

to the requests for production of documents, stating whether all responsive documents, except for

14

those for which a claim of work product has been made, have been produced. Plaintiff shall also

15

identify the requests for which no responsive documents have been produced.

16
17

d. Within fourteen days, plaintiffs shall provide verified, supplemental
responses to the interrogatories as follows:

18

i. C. Mitchell, nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 23

19

ii. J. Wright, nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13

20

iii. D. Wright, no. 2

21

Plaintiffs need not provide legal authorities in responding to the interrogatories

22

except where inquiry is made of the statutory provisions on which plaintiffs predicate their

23

claims.

24

4. The parties are cautioned that discovery is not a timing device. Failure to

25

provide discoverable information in a timely manner may result in the preclusion of such

26

evidence at trial.
2

1

5. The parties are reminded that discovery disputes should first be resolved

2

through good faith meeting and conferring. L.R. 37-251(b). If no resolution can be reached, the

3

parties may bring the matter before this court. In this case, discovery disputes should be

4

summarized jointly by the parties in a letter brief not exceeding six pages.1 The joint letter brief

5

must attest that, prior to filing the request for relief, counsel met and conferred personally or by

6

phone, and must concisely summarize those remaining issues counsel were unable to resolve.

7

The letter brief may cite to limited and specific legal authority only for resolution of the

8

dispositive issues. The letter brief may not be accompanied by exhibits or affidavits; any excerpt

9

of disputed discovery material must be set out verbatim in the letter. After receipt of the letter

10

brief, the court will then advise the parties concerning whether additional briefing or a telephonic

11

conference will be necessary.

12

Dated: September 29, 2011

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
4

17

mitchell7.ckd.oah

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The letter brief shall be in 12 point type with one-inch margins.
3