OEM-Tech, Co. v. Video Gaming Technologies Inc

Filing 224

ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/22/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

OEM-TECH, CO., a California sole
proprietorship owned and operated by
Charles Estes,

No. C 10-04368 RS
ORDER

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Corporation doing business in California as
VGT, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
VGT has moved for attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. 196. This court’s civil local rules require that

19
prior to filing such a motion, the parties meet and confer to attempt to resolve any disputes related to
20
the motion or provide a statement indicating that no conference was held, accompanied by a
21
certification by the moving attorney that a good faith effort to hold the conference failed. See Civ.
22
L.R. 54-5(b)(1). The meet and confer requirement is not satisfied by “[t]he mere sending of a
23
written, electronic, or voice-mail communication. . . . [T]his requirement can only be satisfied
24
through direct dialogue and discussion—either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone
25
conversation.” Civ. L.R. 1-5(n).
26
VGT’s exchange of emails with OEM does not satisfy these local rules. VGT has not
27
certified that it tried to confer with OEM via telephone or in person. That said, OEM’s final email
28
NO. C 10-04368 RS
ORDER

1

communication to VGT about the motion can be read as a refusal to engage in a good faith

2

discussion which would operate to relieve VGT of its pre-filing obligations under the local rules.

3

Balanced against that interpretation is OEM’s averment that it attempted to contact VGT numerous

4

times to discuss the motion, to no avail, and seeks to make a good faith effort to resolve this matter

5

through a phone or in person conference.

6

Accepting that representation at face value, within two weeks from the date of this order, the

7

parties must meet and confer telephonically or in person regarding the attorney’s fees motion. By

8

April 5, 2013, they must file a certification that this telephone conversation or meeting has taken

9

place and indicate if the matter has been resolved. VGT’s attorneys’ fees motion will remain under

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

submission in the interim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: 3/22/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 10-04368 RS
ORDER

2