Nshimba v. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER requiring counsel to engage in an in-person meet and confer by close of business June 20, 2011 regarding the pending discovery dispute, continuing the deadline set in the 29 May 19, 2011 order. The parties' joint letter must be filed by close of business June 23, 2011. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on June 3, 2011. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2011)

1
2
3

NOT FOR CITATION

4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

EUREKA DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. CV 10-2982 RS (NJV)

LINO NSHIMBA,
12

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
MEET AND CONFER RE: PENDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

(Docket No. 23)

LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT
WAREHOUSE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17
The district court has referred Defendant Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc.’s

18
19

motion to compel and all future discovery disputes to this Court for determination. Doc. No. 26. On

20

May 19, 2011, the Court ordered counsel for all parties to engage in an in-person meet and confer by

21

June 3, 2011 regarding the pending discovery dispute. On June 2, 2011, counsel for Defendant

22

informed the Court that the parties are unable to engage in an in-person meet and confer by June 3,

23

2011, due in part to the unavailability of Plaintiff’s counsel through June 15, 2011. It does not

24

appear that the parties attempted to schedule the required in-person meet and confer until June 1,

25

2011.

26

The Court ORDERS counsel for all parties to engage in the previously ordered in-person

27

meet and confer regarding the pending discovery dispute by close of business June 20, 2011. Given

28

counsel’s location in San Francisco and Los Angeles, counsel may participate by telephone.
Counsel shall engage in a meaningful meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery requests and

1

the pending discovery dispute. After the in-person meet and confer, the parties shall file a single

2

joint letter to the Court informing the Court of the status of the in-person meet and confer. If the

3

parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes after the in-person meet and confer, the single

4

joint letter to the Court should succinctly set forth the parties’ positions on each disputed issue. The

5

joint letter must be filed by close of business June 23, 2011. If the parties do not comply with the

6

Court’s order, the hearing currently scheduled for June 28, 2011 will be vacated and continued.

7
8

Per this Court’s standing order, for future discovery-related motions, counsel must deliver
two (2) chambers copies of all filings.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
Dated: June 3, 2011
13

NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2