City and County of San Francisco et al v. United States Postal Service et al
Filing
148
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REQUIRED BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, re doc 147 filed by United States Postal Service. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 5/18/2011. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
JONATHAN U. LEE (CSBN 148792)
THOMAS R. GREEN (CSBN 203480)
VICTORIA R. CARRADERO (CSBN 217885)
Assistant United States Attorneys
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6909
Facsimile: (415) 436-6748
Email: Jonathan.Lee@USDOJ.gov
10
Attorneys for Defendant U. S. Postal Service
11
MICHAEL M. MARKMAN (State Bar No. 191388)
E-mail: mmarkman@cov.com
KELLY P. FINLEY (State Bar No. 247519)
E-mail: kfinley@cov.com
JOSHUA D. HURWIT (State Bar No. 263108)
E-mail: jhurwit@cov.com
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.591.6000
Facsimile: 415.591.6091
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
CENTRAL CITY SRO COLLABORATIVE,
SAN FRANCISCO TENANTS UNION, and
HOUSING RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(Other Counsel Identified on Service List)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
22
23
24
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
25
Plaintiffs,
26
v.
27
28
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
et al.,
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
Case No. 3:09-cv-01964-RS (EDL)
Civil Case No.: 3:09-cv-01964-RS (EDL)
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER REGARDING UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
REQUIRED BY THE ALLEGATIONS
IN THE COMPLAINT
The United States Postal Service’s (“Postal Service”) Motion to Compel
1
2
Discovery Required By The Allegations In The Complaint came on for hearing before
3
Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on April 19, 2011. After consideration of the arguments by
4
counsel at the hearing, the Court requested the parties to prepare a stipulation and proposed
5
order setting forth the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part the Postal Service’s
6
motion.
1.
7
Regarding Interrogatory Number 9, the Court grants in part and denies in
8
part the motion as follows: each plaintiff will provide a list of the apartment buildings and SRO
9
hotel buildings each plaintiff visited during the 9 month period before the filing of the complaint
10
in this case for the blocks listed below. For plaintiff City and County of San Francisco, the
11
response may be limited to properties visited by its Departments of Public Health and Building
12
Inspection.
13
The blocks are: 600 block of Pacific, 700 block of Pacific, 400 block of
14
Valencia, 500 block of South Van Ness, 1000 block of Howard, 100 block of 6th Street, 200
15
block of Turk, and 400 block of Ellis.
16
2.
Regarding Interrogatory Number 6, the Court grants in part and denies in
17
part the motion as follows: plaintiffs’ April 15th supplemental response will be revised to reflect
18
it was served on behalf of all plaintiffs and verifications will be provided.
19
3.
Regarding Interrogatories Number 4 and 5, the Court finds that the Postal
20
Service knows the addresses of apartments and SRO hotels better than the City and County of
21
San Francisco and on that basis denies that portion of the motion.
22
4.
Regarding Interrogatories 8 and 10 to 25, the Court grants in part and
23
denies in part the motion as follows: the plaintiffs’ April 15th supplemental responses will be
24
revised to reflect they were served on behalf of all plaintiffs and verifications will be provided.
25
5.
Regarding the portion of the motion concerning the investigation
26
plaintiffs conducted before they filed this complaint, the Court grants in part and denies in part
27
the motion as follows:
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
Case No. 3:09-cv-01964-RS (EDL)
1
Regarding the documents, plaintiffs will disclose the documents and/or facts
1
2
within the documents that do not contain attorney mental processes and/or provide a declaration
3
under oath clarifying whether or not the facts and/or documents have been provided already.
4
For any facts and documents not previously disclosed, but for which plaintiffs have ascertained
5
that there is no possible way to provide the facts or documents in redacted form, plaintiffs will
6
provide a declaration under oath with sufficient detail to enable the Postal Service to confirm the
7
claim of attorney work product. For the documents that have not been produced, if plaintiffs
8
determine that it is impossible to redact mental impressions of an attorney versus facts, the
9
documents may be withheld but plaintiffs will have to provide an interrogatory response with
10
the facts.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
11
12
Dated:
May 16, 2011
By:
/s/
_______
Michael M. Markman
Kelly P. Finley
COVINGTON BURLING LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, CENTRAL CITY SRO
COLLABORATIVE, SAN
FRANCISCO TENANTS UNION,
and HOUSING RIGHTS
COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dated: May 16, 2011
By: __/s/___________________
Jonathan U. Lee
U. S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE
20
21
22
23
24
25
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
18
May __, 2011
_________________________
Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
Case No. 3:09-cv-01964-RS (EDL)
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?