Clark et al v. United States Of America et al

Filing 48

ORDER re 41 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Michael R. Clark, 40 MOTION for Protective Order AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS filed by United States Of America. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 MICHAEL R. and SUSAN C. CLARK,

Case No. 11-cv-00471 RS (NC)

12

ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

13

Plaintiffs,
v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 41

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, by its

15 agency, the INTERNAL REVENUE
16
17
18

SERVICE,
Defendant.
This order addresses Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash

19 Deposition Subpoenas and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines. As Judge
20 Seeborg noted in his November 6, 2012 order continuing the hearing on summary
21 judgment, the parties failed to properly notice this discovery dispute, and as a result,
22 Plaintiffs’ proposed date to extend discovery has passed. Dkt. No. 47. Plaintiffs’ motion is
23 DENIED as moot. Because Judge Seeborg has allowed the parties to file supplemental
24 briefing, the Court addresses Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoenas of additional
25 deponents and for a protective order.
26
27

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES AND STANDING ORDER
Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) mandates a conference between counsel before presenting

28 the Court with a discovery dispute: “The Court will not entertain a request or a motion to
Case No. 11-cv-00471 RS (NC)
ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

1 resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel
2 have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.” My
3 Civil Standing Order further explains that the “conference” must be in person, or if counsel
4 are outside the San Francisco Bay Area, must at least be by telephone. A mere exchange of
5 letters, emails, or telephone messages does not satisfy this requirement. See Mag. Judge N.
6 Cousins, Civil Standing Order, updated Aug. 24, 2012 (copy attached). If, after conferring,
7 the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute, they must submit a joint letter brief. Id.
8

Here, the parties have failed to meet and confer to resolve their dispute. Counsel for

9 Defendant declares that she contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to try to resolve the dispute prior
10 to filing the motion. Plaintiffs allege that they sought an agreement and stipulation from
11 defense counsel regarding the additional depositions. This type of incomplete exchange by
12 counsel does not satisfy this Court’s requirement that parties meet and confer before
13 submitting a discovery dispute. Defendant also failed to follow my standing order and
14 improperly submitted a motion regarding this dispute, without notice and without setting a
15 hearing.
16

Because of these deficiencies, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

17 Defendant’s motion for a protective order and to quash. The parties are ordered to meet
18 and confer in accordance with my standing order. If, after meeting, the parties have not
19 resolved these issues, they may resubmit the dispute to the court. In that event, Defendant
20 must submit a letter brief, as described in my standing order, by November 14, 2012 at
21 5:00 p.m. A hearing will be set for November 21, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th
22 Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Date: November 8, 2012

25

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-00471 RS (NC)
ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

2