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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?