Myrtle Street Flats LLC, v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/14/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 47 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendant City of Vallejo shall promptly make further efforts to confirm with appr opriate persons/custodians that all responsive text messages, voicemails, and call logs have been produced. Within 21 days of this order, the City of Vallejo shall either make a supplemental production of such items or provide plaintiff with a fi rm representation that no such responsive text messages, voicemails, or call logs exist; Within 21 days of this order, defendant City of Vallejo shall provide plaintiff with a supplemental, itemized privilege log for all pre-litigation documents ( i.e., documents that were generated prior to the initiation of this lawsuit) that were withheld based on the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege; All of plaintiff's remaining requests are DENIED without prej udice, subject to further good faith meet-and-confer efforts by the parties as discussed in greater detail at the hearing. The parties are cautioned that failure to properly meet and confer prior to bringing a discovery dispute before the court may result in the imposition of sanctions on the offending party or parties. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MYRTLE STREET FLATS LLC dba
SUNRISE PROPERTIES,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1662-JAM-KJN

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
On September 12, 2018, the court conducted a hearing with respect to plaintiff’s motion to

19
20

compel production of documents and supplemental responses to requests for production of

21

documents, requests for admission, and interrogatories. (ECF No. 47.) At the hearing, attorneys

22

Frank Busch and Daniel Veroff personally appeared on behalf of plaintiff; attorney Katelyn

23

Knight personally appeared on behalf of defendant City of Vallejo; and attorney Jason Benkner

24

appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant Emergency Construction Services, Inc. (ECF No.

25

58.)

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

After carefully considering the parties’ joint statement regarding their discovery

1
2

disagreement (ECF No. 49) and the parties’ oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the

3

record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

4
5

PART.

6

2. Defendant City of Vallejo shall promptly make further efforts to confirm with

7

appropriate persons/custodians that all responsive text messages, voicemails, and call

8

logs have been produced. Within 21 days of this order, the City of Vallejo shall either

9

make a supplemental production of such items or provide plaintiff with a firm

10

representation that no such responsive text messages, voicemails, or call logs exist.

11

3. Within 21 days of this order, defendant City of Vallejo shall provide plaintiff with a

12

supplemental, itemized privilege log for all pre-litigation documents (i.e., documents

13

that were generated prior to the initiation of this lawsuit) that were withheld based on

14

the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege.

15

4. All of plaintiff’s remaining requests are denied without prejudice, subject to further

16

good faith meet-and-confer efforts by the parties as discussed in greater detail at the

17

hearing. The parties are cautioned that failure to properly meet and confer1 prior to

18

bringing a discovery dispute before the court may result in the imposition of sanctions

19

on the offending party or parties.2

20
21

////

22

1

24

Although the parties are free to memorialize discussions in an e-mail or letter, the court expects
the parties to meet and confer in voice-to-voice dialogue (preferably in person, but at a minimum
telephonically) and in a sincere effort to streamline discovery and avoid unnecessary motion
practice.

25

2

23

26
27
28

Assuming that appropriate meet-and-confer efforts have been exhausted, the parties are also
invited to use the court’s mechanism for informal telephonic discovery conferences. The
procedures and conditions for requesting and conducting such informal telephonic discovery
conferences are outlined in Judge Newman’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re
Discovery Disputes,” posted on the court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/
index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/.
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 14, 2018

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3