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)

Download PDF
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?