Flagstar Bank, FSB v. The Loan Experts Corporation et al

Filing 153

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 149 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Joint letter due 3/16/12.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2012)

Download PDF
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 FLAGSTAR BANK, 12 13 Plaintiff, No. C-10-03190 CRB (DMR) NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES v. 14 LOAN EXPERTS, et al., 15 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 19 Defendant Stewart Title of California, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claim of the Loan Experts 20 Corporation and Hormoz Nazari ("Motion to Dismiss," Docket No. 149), as well as all further 21 discovery. The Motion to Dismiss was noticed for hearing on April 13, 2012. 22 The court VACATES the current hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and 23 DENIES the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Any joint letter regarding the instant discovery 24 dispute (see section below entitled "Resolution of Discovery Disputes") shall be filed no later than 25 March 16, 2012. The court emphasizes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the 26 Northern District of California’s Local Rules, require the parties to meet and confer to try to resolve 27 their disagreements. 28 1 Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2 and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders. 3 Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general orders’ electronic 4 filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are 5 available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties’ failure to comply with any of the rules or 6 orders may be a ground for sanctions. 7 8 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to resolve their 11 For the Northern District of California the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. Instead, 10 United States District Court 9 disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and may not be 12 conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no 13 later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for both 14 parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in 15 person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. Going issue-by-issue, the joint 16 letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal 17 authority; and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to the next issue. The 18 joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of court. In the rare instance that a joint 19 letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages, which shall include 20 an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. When appropriate, the parties may submit one 21 exhibit to the letter that sets forth each discovery request at issue in full, followed immediately by 22 the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in any such exhibit. 23 No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the court. The court will review the 24 submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. 25 In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after 26 exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil 27 L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the 28 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. 2 1 In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the court has found that it is often efficient 2 and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where 3 appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining 4 available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the court 5 expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted, 6 in the court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if 7 the court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal 8 attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good 9 cause must be set forth in the request. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS All filings relating to a 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 14 copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland 15 Clerk’s Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the 16 close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed 17 stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to 18 dmrpo@cand.uscourts.gov as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the 19 document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise 20 directed by the court. 21 PRIVILEGE LOGS 22 If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it 23 is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a 24 privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing part(ies) to assess whether 25 a document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log 26 shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each 27 category of similarly situated documents: 28 3 1 a. 2 The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range; 3 b. The subject matter addressed in the document; 4 c. The identity and position of its author(s); 5 d. The identity and position of all addressees and recipients; 6 e. The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent 7 9 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. S UNIT ED Dated: March 9, 2012 13 D RDERE OO IT IS S DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 M. Ryu A LI ER H 16 onna Judge D FO 14 RT For the Northern District of California 12 RT U O 11 S DISTRICT TE C TA NO United States District Court 10 f. R NIA 8 to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?