Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 52

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/2/2014 ORDERING counsel for plaintiffs and defendant to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be monetarily sanctioned, in the amount of $250.00 each, for failure to meet and confer about the protective order. Counsel for each party shall respond by filing a sworn declaration within seven days of the date of this order. All other provisions of the court's order of 2/20/2014, remain in effect. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOC., CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOC.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,

16
Defendants.
17
18

The court held a status conference on February 14, 2014 at which the court

19

discussed the parties’ impasse on stipulating to a protective order as well as the parties’ progress,

20

or lack thereof, on discovery. The court then issued on February 20 an order to confirm the

21

schedule outlined at status and to provide guidance for resubmission of a proposed protective

22

order, which the parties were ordered to submit to the court no later than March 13, 2014. (ECF

23

47.) In addition, the court, after discussing the issue of notice to parents and students before

24

discovery of documents containing students’ personal identifying information was undertaken, set

25

a schedule for finalizing notice and initiating discovery of defendant’s databases.

26

On March 13, defendant filed objections to plaintiffs’ proposed protective order.

27

(ECF 49.) Many of these objections concerned preexisting provisions of the proposed protective

28

order to which defendant previously had not objected. (See Ex. A, ECF 49-1.) Defendant stated
1

1

it did not have time to meet and confer with plaintiffs to resolve the remaining disputes regarding

2

the proposed protective order prior to its submission. (Id.)

3

Plaintiffs filed their proposed protective order on March 13 and informed the court

4

the parties had not met and conferred and that plaintiffs had just received defendant’s objections

5

to the proposed protective order. (ECF 50-2.) Plaintiffs also averred they had made “repeated

6

suggestions that the parties engage in a telephonic meet and confer” but defendant rebuffed their

7

overtures. (Id.)

8

The court will issue a protective order that memorializes the core terms the parties

9

have essentially agreed upon. It declines to resolve the disputed issues the parties have failed to

10

exhaust through meaningful meet and confer. In light of the court’s prior orders requiring meet

11

and confer sessions, the court orders counsel for plaintiffs and defendant to show cause why they

12

should not be monetarily sanctioned, in the amount of $250.00 each, for failure to meet and

13

confer about the protective order. Counsel for each party shall respond by filing a sworn

14

declaration within seven days of the date of this order.

15

All other provisions of the court’s order of February 20, 2014, remain in effect.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: April 2, 2014.

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2