Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 256

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docket Nos. 251, 254] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 07-05596 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Docket Nos. 251, 254] CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has recently filed two discovery motions [Docket Nos. 251, 254]. It appears that plaintiff filed these requests without first meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. Local Civil Rule 37-1 provides that the Court "will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues." See Civ. Local R. 37. To "`meet and confer' or `confer' means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order . . . . [S]uch communication may take place by telephone. The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to `meet and confer' or to `confer.' Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation." See Civ. Local R. 15(n) (emphasis added). Plaintiff is also notified that per this Court's Standing Order, counsel seeking the Court's intervention in a discovery dispute shall file and serve a letter brief, five pages or less. Accordingly, plaintiff's discovery requests are DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile these requests if, after complying with the meet and confer requirement, she is unable to resolve these matters with opposing counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 27 26 25 24 1 2

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?