Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al
Filing
170
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/13 addressing issues pertaining to plaintiff's document production re 169 Status Conference. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNLY R. BECKER, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
No. 2:10-cv-02799 TLN KJN PS
v.
ORDER
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, INC., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. (“defendant”) requested an informal discovery
17
18
teleconference to allow the court to address issues pertaining to plaintiff’s document production.1
19
(ECF No. 168.) On November 7, 2013, the undersigned conducted the informal discovery
20
teleconference.2 (ECF No. 169.) Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Attorney
21
David Newman appeared telephonically on defendant’s behalf.
For the reasons discussed on the record during the teleconference, it is HEREBY
22
23
ORDERED THAT:
1. All future joint two-page letters filed in advance of telephonic discovery conferences
24
25
1
26
27
28
(See ECF Nos. 163 at 4 (requiring the parties to request telephonic conferences before
completing any further discovery filings); 164 at 3-4 (same).)
2
This action proceeds before this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
shall be prepared jointly, with the parties collaborating to write them rather than
2
separately drafting their own single pages and simply attaching them together. Such
3
collaboration requires the parties to have verbal discussions via telephone, not just
4
written correspondence. In general, properly preparing such joint two-page letters
5
will require the moving party (i.e., the party requesting the teleconference) to write a
6
sentence or two describing that party’s position on a given disputed issue, and directly
7
beneath that description, the non-moving party shall write a sentence or two conveying
8
the non-moving party’s position on that disputed issue. After each party carefully
9
reviewing the other party’s proffered sentence(s) on the given issue and
10
reconsidering the party’s own position in light of those sentences, the parties are to
11
again communicate by phone to ascertain whether either party’s position has
12
changed, and/or whether the previously-written sentences should be amended or
13
clarified so as to even more accurately define the issue(s) the court must address
14
during the teleconference. The parties should not have a goal of cramming as much
15
information as possible into the joint two-page letters.
16
2. In the future, whenever a new set of discovery requests (or a new deposition notice) is
17
propounded, meet and confer efforts pertaining to each newly-propounded set (or
18
notice) shall include at least one telephone call, in addition to written meet and
19
confer correspondence.
20
3. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, plaintiff shall produce all documents
21
responsive to defendant’s document requests (as narrowed and refined by the parties’
22
meet and confer efforts to date as well as statements made on the record during the
23
hearing). Plaintiff shall also confirm in writing that his document production includes
24
all such responsive documents, not merely those he subjectively considers relevant.
25
As discussed on the record during the hearing, should plaintiff wish to withhold
26
responsive documents solely on grounds of a “relevance” objection, he should be
27
prepared to be sanctioned should the court determine that the objection is not well-
28
taken.
2
1
4. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, defendant shall return the documents plaintiff
2
has produced to date so that plaintiff can have each page Bates stamped. Plaintiff
3
shall pay the shipping costs, if any, that defendant incurs in returning plaintiff’s
4
documents.
5
a. Within 14 days of his documents being returned to him, plaintiff shall have
6
each of the returned documents Bates stamped.
7
b. Also within 14 days of his documents being returned to him, plaintiff shall
8
serve copies of the Bates-stamped documents upon defendant.
9
c. Also within 14 days of his documents being returned to him, plaintiff shall
10
update his “document index” so as to reflect the Bates numbers of the
11
documents indexed therein.
12
d. Also within 14 days of his documents being returned to him, plaintiff shall
13
serve the updated “document index” — revised to include the Bates numbers
14
of plaintiff’s documents — upon defendant.
5. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, defendant shall produce its “revised”
15
16
privilege log to plaintiff, as well as its “revised” redactions upon various documents
17
redacted for reasons stated within the privilege log.3
18
6. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, defendant shall provide the names of
19
employees identified by initials or alphanumerics in documents within defendant’s
20
production. Defendant shall provide the names of such employees because they
21
helped make decisions regarding his modification requests, regardless of whether they
22
directly communicated with plaintiff.
23
7. During the hearing, the undersigned considered ordering full written briefing to allow
24
a close examination the parties’ relevant meet and confer communications, with the
25
goal of revealing whether either or both parties should be sanctioned for discovery
26
27
3
Defense counsel confirmed on the record that while defendant redacts certain documents on
the basis of privilege, no documents are being completely withheld.
28
3
1
abuses and/or failure to engage in good faith meet and confer efforts. Both parties
2
indicated that such briefing was unnecessary at present, but might perhaps be helpful
3
in the near future. Accordingly, while the undersigned does not require the parties to
4
file briefing to delineate all meet and confer efforts leading up to this particular
5
teleconference, the parties should engage in future meet and confer communications
6
mindful of this potentiality. The undersigned will not hesitate to sanction either or
7
both parties should he learn that such party has engaged in improper discovery
8
practices, including but not limited to having requested judicial intervention needlessly
9
or prematurely.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated: November 12, 2013
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?