(PS)Thacker v. AT&T Corporation et al
Filing
37
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/18/20 DENYING 29 Motion to Compel and 35 Motion for Protective Order. The parties shall within 60 days of the date of entry of this order contact the courtroom deputy for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to arrange the scheduling of a settlement conference. All claims against defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc., are stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID C. THACKER,
12
No. 2:20-cv-00255-KJM-CKD PS
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER
AT&T CORPORATION, et al.,
15
(ECF Nos. 29, 35)
Defendants.
16
17
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel from defendant AT&T1 further
18
responses to his first set of interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions.
19
(ECF No. 29.) The parties filed a joint statement regarding this discovery dispute (ECF No. 31),
20
and arguments on the matter were heard on November 18, 2020 (ECF No. 36).
Plaintiff seeks to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 8, 11, 15-19;
21
22
Requests for Production Nos. 7-17; and Requests for Admission Nos. 8-9 and 30-31. On
23
November 12, 2020, after filing the joint statement but before the hearing, AT&T served such
24
responses. (See ECF No. 34 at 2.) That timing has deprived the court of the ability to
25
substantively rule on plaintiff’s motion to compel, which is now moot in light of the newly served
26
27
28
1
Defendant states that its title is AT&T Mobility, LLC, and that it has been incorrectly sued as
AT&T Corporation. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) The court refers to this defendant simply as AT&T.
1
1
supplemental responses.2 The parties are therefore instructed to meet and confer regarding any
2
remaining disputes about the supplemental responses. Plaintiff’s motion is denied without
3
prejudice to re-filing in the event that he has a legitimate basis for believing the supplemental
4
responses remain insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5
In addition, based on the discussion at the hearing, the court finds it appropriate to order
6
the parties to participate in a settlement conference before another magistrate judge in the near
7
future. Instructions for arranging this settlement conference appear below.
In the meantime, the court notes that plaintiff’s claims against the second defendant in this
8
9
action, Diversified Consultants, Inc. (“DCI”), are now stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362,
10
following the November 2, 2020 order of the bankruptcy court in DCI’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy
11
proceeding. See In re: Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 3:20-bk-01311-CJJ (Bankr. M.D. Fl.)
12
(ECF No. 106).
13
Finally, as discussed at the hearing, AT&T has filed a defective motion for entry of a
14
stipulated protective order. (ECF No. 35.) That motion is denied without prejudice to refiling a
15
proposed stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1.
16
////
17
////
18
////
19
////
20
////
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
2
27
28
The parties are cautioned that repeating this mistake—serving supplemental discovery responses
after submitting a joint statement describing the parties’ positions on the original responses,
without withdrawing the discovery motion or otherwise notifying the court prior to the hearing—
will result in sanctions to avoid such inefficiency in the future.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 29) is denied without prejudice;
3
2. The parties shall within 60 days of the date of entry of this order contact the courtroom
4
deputy for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at awaldrop@caed.uscourts.gov to
5
arrange the scheduling of a settlement conference;
6
7
8
9
3. All claims against defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc., are stayed pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 362; and
4. Defendant AT&T’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: November 18, 2020
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
19.thac.0255
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?