Cuviello et al v. City Of Oakland et al

Filing 441

ORDER re (440 in 3:06-cv-05517-EMC) Letter filed by Joseph P. Cuviello Meet and confer set for 2/2/12 at 9:30 a.m.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/24/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOSEPH P. CUVIELLO, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-06-5517 EMC CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 12 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ “JOINT LETTER” RE NORTHEAST STAIRS Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 440) 13 14 15 At a hearing on December 23, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer 16 regarding the northeast stairs issue and to submit a joint letter by January 20, 2012. See Docket No. 17 439 (civil minutes). On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted a filing on their own, indicating that, 18 immediately after the hearing, the parties discussed the issue briefly in the hallway, that Defendant 19 stated they would follow up, but that Defendant never did. See Docket No. 440 (Plaintiffs’ “joint 20 letter”). 21 Accepting Plaintiffs’ representations as true, the Court finds that both parties have failed to 22 comply with its order. First, a brief discussion in the courtroom hallway does not constitute a good 23 faith meet and confer. Second, it is not acceptable for either party to “wait” for the other to initiate 24 or follow-up on a discussion. This failure of the parties to communicate with one another has been 25 symptomatic of this litigation and has led to needless and unjustified motion practice (including the 26 multiple motions for sanctions filed by Plaintiffs), and the Court shall not tolerate it any further. In 27 the future, the Court expects that the parties shall communicate and/or meet and confer in good faith. 28 1 2 A failure to do so will result in sanctions, potentially on both parties, depending on the circumstances. As for the issue regarding the northeast stairs, the Court hereby orders that lead trial counsel 3 for each side appear (or the party if not represented) for an in-person meet and confer, to be held at 4 the federal courthouse on February 2, 2012. The parties shall make an appearance in Courtroom 5 5 before the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at 9:30 a.m.. The parties are expected to resolve the dispute 6 without the need for judicial intervention and should be prepared to meet and confer all day, if 7 necessary, to resolve the dispute. If, at the end of the day, the parties are not able to resolve the 8 dispute, then they shall submit by February 9, 2012, a joint letter, stating what remains unresolved 9 and what each side’s last offer of compromise is. A party that takes a position that is not substantially justified may be sanctioned. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: January 24, 2012 15 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 CUVIELLO ET AL et al, 4 Case Number: CV06-05517 EMC Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 CITY OF OAKLAND ET AL et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 24, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Joseph Patrick Cuviello Box 2834 Redwood City, CA 94064 Dated: January 24, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Betty Lee, Deputy Clerk 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?