Bookhamer et al v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER re 50 Letter filed by Mary DiSilvestro, Charles Thomas Martin, Jr., Anthony Bookhamer, Carl DiSilvestro, Lena J. Tryon. Discovery Hearing set for 1/12/2012 before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/9/2011. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ANTHONY BOOKHAMER,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER
RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES AND
SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS INC,

15

No. C-09-06027-EMC (DMR)

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17
18
19
TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
20
The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for all discovery
21
matters. The court shall conduct oral argument on the parties’ joint discovery letter [Docket No. 50]
22
on January 12, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California
23
94612. For courtroom number and floor information, please check the Court’s on-line calendar at
24
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click “Calendars” link on left side, click link to Judge Ryu’s
25
calendar) or call Judge Ryu’s Courtroom Deputy, Ivy Garcia, at [phone], one week prior to
26
the scheduled hearing.
27
28

1

For any future discovery disputes, the parties shall comply with the procedures in this order,

2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General

3

Orders, and General Standing Orders. Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a

4

summary of the general orders’ electronic filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing

5

proposed orders to chambers) are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties’ failure to

6

comply with any of the rules or orders may be a ground for sanctions.

7
8
9

RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner,
the Court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions.
Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and

12

may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint

13

letter no later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for

14

both parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and

15

conferred in person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. Going issue-by-

16

issue, the joint letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with

17

appropriate legal authority; and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to

18

the next issue. The joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of Court. In the rare

19

instance that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages,

20

which shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. When appropriate, the

21

parties may submit one exhibit to the letter that sets forth each discovery request at issue in full,

22

followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be

23

included in any such exhibit. No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the

24

Court. The Court will review the submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or

25

proceedings are necessary.

26
27

In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after
exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil

28

2

1

L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the Court through the courtroom deputy. If the Court is unavailable, the

2

discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record.

3

In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the Court has found that it is often efficient

4

and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where

5

appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining

6

available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the Court

7

expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted,

8

in the Court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if

9

the Court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal
attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

cause must be set forth in the request.

12
13
14
15

CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS
All filings relating to discovery dispute referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu shall list the civil
case number and the district court judge’s initials followed by the designation “(DMR).”
Under Civil L.R. 5-1(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing and mark it as a

16

copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland

17

Clerk’s Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the

18

close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed

19

stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to

20

[e-mail] as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the

21

document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise

22

directed by the Court.

23

PRIVILEGE LOGS

24

If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it

25

is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a

26

privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing party to assess whether a

27

document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log shall

28

3

1

set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each category of

2

similarly situated documents:

3

a.

4

The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range;

5

b.

The subject matter addressed in the document;

6

c.

The identity and position of its author(s);

7

d.

The identity and position of all addressees and recipients;

8

e.

The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and
f.

The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected.

Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: December 9, 2011

16

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4