Hat World, Inc. v. Kelly

Filing 29

ORDER RESETTING HEARING as to 17 Motion to Permit Targeted Expedited Discovery :( Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2012 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan.) See order for briefing schedule. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/29/12. (Hinkle, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HAT WORLD, INC., d/b/a LIDS TEAM
SPORTS,

11
Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-1591-LKK-EFB

12
vs.
13
KEVIN KELLY,
14
Defendant.

ORDER
/

15
16

On June 27, 2012, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s application for an order shortening

17

time on a motion to permit targeted discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference in this case, and

18

set the motion for expedited discovery to be heard on Monday, July 2, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Dckt.

19

No. 21; see also Dckt. Nos. 17, 19. The parties were “reminded of the necessity of meeting and

20

conferring in good faith, and attempting to resolve their discovery dispute prior to the court’s

21

hearing regarding the dispute,” and were directed to meet and confer regarding the motion for

22

expedited discovery on or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2012. Dckt. No. 21 at 3. The

23

order provided that if the parties were unable to resolve the dispute through the meet and confer

24

process, defendant was to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery at or

25

before 11:00 a.m. on Friday, June 29, 2012. Id.

26

////
1

1

On June 29, 2012, defendant filed an opposition to the motion for expedited discovery.

2

Dckt. No. 25. In the opposition, defendant indicates that the parties attempted to meet and

3

confer via email and via a telephone conference on June 28, 2012 but were unable to reach an

4

agreement. Id. at 4; Thompson Decl., Dckt. No. 26, ¶¶ 2-4. However, a review of defendant’s

5

opposition and the email exchanges between the parties reveals that the parties may be able to

6

reach a resolution on some or all of the expedited discovery at issue, but were unable to reach

7

such a resolution primarily because of the tight schedule that was set for hearing the motion.

8

Thompson Decl., Exs. A, B. The opposition and email exchanges also reveal that the parties

9

primarily focused on the timing of discovery and the preliminary injunction hearing, as opposed

10

to the specific discovery requests at issue. Id.

11

Although plaintiff initially requested a hearing on the motion for expedited discovery on

12

or before July 2, 2012, and the court initially granted that request, the meet and confer process is

13

an important component of the discovery process and is required by both the Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(b) (providing that a

15

discovery motion will not be heard unless “the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve

16

their differences” and that “[c]ounsel for all interested parties shall confer in advance of the

17

filing of the motion or in advance of the hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to resolve

18

the differences that are the subject of the motion.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (providing that a

19

motion to compel discovery “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith

20

conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery

21

in an effort to obtain it without court action.”). In order to permit the parties to engage in a

22

proper and thorough meet and confer process, the hearing on the motion for expedited discovery

23

will be continued.1

24
1

25
26

The court notes that defendant Kelly avers that he did not even receive plaintiff’s
discovery requests until June 23, 2012, and did not receive the order setting a hearing on
plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery until June 28, 2012. Kelly Decl., Dckt. No. 27, ¶¶ 3-5.
Kelly also did not obtain counsel until June 27, 2012, who then learned of the hearing on the
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery, Dckt. No. 17, is continued

3
4

to Monday, July 9, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 24.
2. On or before Thursday, July 5, 2012, the parties shall further meet and confer in good

5

faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery dispute prior to the court’s hearing regarding the

6

dispute. Failure of any party to do so will be cause for sanctions.

7
8
9

3. If the parties are able to resolve the dispute without court intervention, plaintiff’s
counsel shall withdraw the motion as soon as possible.
4. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through the further meet and confer

10

process, on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 6, 2012, the parties shall file a joint statement

11

regarding the discovery disagreement, in accordance with Local Rule 251.

12
13

SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 29, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

motion for discovery later that day. Thompson Decl. ¶ 2.
3