Shadd et al v. County Sacramento et al

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/11/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' MOTION to COMPEL 73 is DENIED without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARVIN SHADD, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2834-MCE-KJN

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Following several motions to dismiss, this case presently involves excessive force claims,

17
18

as well as related supervisory liability and Monell claims, by previously-juvenile plaintiffs that

19

were housed at the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall.
Presently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant County of

20
21

Sacramento to provide further responses to numerous requests for production of documents,

22

interrogatories, and requests for admission. (ECF No. 73.) The motion was noticed for hearing

23

on August 14, 2014, and the parties filed their joint statement regarding the discovery

24

disagreement on August 7, 2014. (ECF Nos. 73, 76.) For the reasons discussed below, the court

25

denies the motion to compel without prejudice based on the parties’ failure to properly meet and

26

confer regarding their discovery dispute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local

27

Rule 251.

28

////
1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides, in part, that: “On notice to other parties and

1
2

all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The

3

motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

4

confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it

5

without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Furthermore, Local Rule 251(b) provides that a

6

discovery motion:

7

shall not be heard unless (1) the parties have conferred and
attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set
forth their differences and the bases therefor in a Joint Statement re
Discovery Disagreement. Counsel for all interested parties shall
confer in advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the
hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the
differences that are the subject of the motion. Counsel for the
moving party or prospective moving party shall be responsible for
arranging the conference, which shall be held at a time and place
and in a manner mutually convenient to counsel.

8
9
10
11
12
13

E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(b).

14

In this case, the parties essentially concede in their joint statement that they had not had

15

any substantive meet-and-confer conference or discussions, but had merely each drafted its own

16

portion of the joint statement. This is readily apparent from a review of the parties’ 95-page joint

17

statement and accompanying declarations, which concern an unnecessarily numerous amount of

18

discovery requests and reflect a significant amount of misunderstanding and failure to

19

communicate between the parties. While the court does not hesitate to resolve truly legitimate

20

discovery disputes, the court declines to referee the parties’ multitude of discovery issues, which

21

the parties themselves have not even adequately discussed or refined.

22

Regardless of the contentiousness of the litigation, the parties are required to conduct

23

themselves with civility and mutual cooperation in discovery. Thus, it is the court’s expectation

24

that, prior to bringing a discovery motion for resolution by the court, the parties have conducted a

25

good faith, substantive, and meaningful informal conference(s) regarding the issues presented,

26

preferably in person, or at a minimum, by teleconference. Merely exchanging letters or leaving

27

voicemails is not sufficient.

28

////
2

1

Furthermore, although the court does not reach the substance or merits of the discovery

2

motion, and issues no definitive ruling as to any particular matter, the court finds it appropriate to

3

make a few general observations to guide the parties’ future meet-and-confer discussions.

4

At an initial glance, it seems that some of the discovery requests may be overbroad given

5

the claims remaining in the case, as well as the timing of the events at issue in the litigation. On

6

the other hand, it also appears that many, if not all, of defendant’s privacy and confidentiality

7

concerns regarding production of juvenile and other records could be addressed by virtue of an

8

appropriate stipulated protective order.1 Furthermore, the court generally looks with disfavor on

9

objections and resulting disputes as to vagueness and ambiguity. Any vagueness and ambiguities

10

can readily be clarified in the meet-and-confer process, with responses provided based on such

11

clarification. Finally, to the extent that a party opts to produce documents in lieu of answering

12

interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the court trusts that the parties

13

will be able to work cooperatively in a proper meet-and-confer session to resolve any concerns

14

regarding which records or subsets of records are responsive to particular interrogatories, without

15

involving the court in such essentially logistical matters.

16

After exhausting a good faith and meaningful meet-and-confer process, and if any

17

legitimate issues remain after careful consideration of the court’s observations above, the parties

18

may bring those issues to the court for resolution by a properly noticed motion. However, the

19

parties are cautioned that if the court finds that either or both parties have been unreasonable or

20

obstructive with respect to a particular issue(s), the court may impose sanctions on the offending

21

party or parties.

22

In lieu of formal motion practice, and to save time and expense, the parties may also

23

consider requesting an informal telephonic conference regarding their discovery dispute. Such a

24

telephonic conference must be requested in accordance with the procedure outlined in the

25

undersigned’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” which is

26

1

27
28

The parties are advised that the court is disinclined to perform in camera review of a
voluminous amount of documents to determine potential relevance. In camera review, if found
appropriate at all, will generally be limited to a very discreet set of documents for which such
review is truly necessary.
3

1

published on the court’s website.2 However, even when parties elect to proceed by virtue of an

2

informal telephonic conference, the court may still impose sanctions if it finds that any party

3

failed to adequately meet and confer, or engaged in some other type of discovery abuse.
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’

4
5

motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is denied without prejudice.

6

Dated: August 11, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

See http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/.
4