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)

Download PDF
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

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?