Willner v. Manpower Inc.

Filing 56

ORDER VACATING DISCOVERY MEET AND CONFER. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/21/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2012)

UNIT
ED

S

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

Direct Fax: [phone]

s

na Jame

NO

December 19, 2012

TED
[e-mail]
GRAN
ria-Ele
dge Ma

Ju

Re:

A

H

ER

LI

RT

The Honorable Maria-Elena James
United States District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

R NIA

Sylvia J. Kim
Direct: 310.315.8216

FO

McGuireWoods LLP
1800 Century Park East
8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: [phone]
www.mcguirewoods.com

N

D IS T IC T
R

Willner v. Manpower, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-02846 JSW (MEJ)
Response to Plaintiff’s Letter [Dkt. #53] and Request for Reconsideration of
Order for Parties to Appear for Courtroom Meet and Confer Session [Dkt.
#54]

Dear Magistrate Judge James:
Defendant Manpower Inc. (“Manpower”) respectfully submits this response to opposing
counsel’s letter to you of yesterday, December 18, 2012 [Dkt. #53] (the “Letter”), and requests
reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2012 Order for Parties to Appear for Courtroom
Meet and Confer Session [Dkt. #54] (the “Order”). As we set forth below, Plaintiff’s counsel
failed to provide the Court with a complete and accurate history and recitation of the parties’
meet and confer efforts to date, including that Manpower’s counsel will be unavailable due to
out-of-state holiday travel plans after the end of this week, through and including January 5,
2013, and that the parties already had scheduled an in-person meet and confer session at
Manpower’s counsel’s office for January 8, 2013, which is the earliest date available for the
parties to do so.
Indeed, Manpower’s counsel has made at least two separate offers to meet and confer in
person with Plaintiff’s counsel since the Court’s November 13, 2012 order to do so [Dkt. #52].1
First, at Plaintiff’s counsel’s request, Manpower’s counsel made itself available to meet and
confer in person two weeks ago, on Friday, December 7, 2012. To that end, on Monday,
November 26, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Manpower’s counsel provide a date and
time to meet and confer in person that same week. Not surprisingly, Manpower’s counsel was
unavailable on such short notice during that week due to existing scheduling conflicts and other
1

As the Court will recall, that earlier order was necessitated by Plaintiff’s counsel’s flat-out
refusal to meet and confer with Manpower’s counsel about Manpower’s proposed protective
order. See Dkt. #51 (Notice of Lodging Defendant Manpower Inc.’s Proposed Protective Order
Pursuant To Order Re: Discovery Dispute [Dkt. No. 49] And Of Plaintiff’s Failure To Meet And
Confer Regarding Same), ¶¶ 4-6.
Atlanta | Austin | Baltimore | Brussels | Charlotte | Charlottesville | Chicago | Houston | Jacksonville | London
Los Angeles | New York | Norfolk | Pittsburgh | Raleigh | Richmond | Tysons Corner | Washington, D.C. | Wilmington

OF

C

The Honorable Maria-Elena James
December 19, 2012
Page 2

commitments, but offered to provide alternative dates in the following weeks for the parties to
meet and confer in person. However, before Manpower’s counsel could provide those dates,
Plaintiff’s counsel responded by requesting that the parties meet and confer during the week of
December 3, 2012. In accordance with that request, Manpower’s counsel proposed Friday,
December 7, 2012. See Exh. A hereto. The only reason the parties did not meet and confer on
that date was because, contrary to her request, Plaintiff’s counsel claimed to be unavailable on
December 7th. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel then changed gears, and requested that the parties
instead meet and confer telephonically the following week of December 10th. Id. In accordance
with that request, Manpower’s counsel made themselves available and the parties’ counsel did in
fact meet and confer telephonically on Friday, December 14, 2012, but they were unable to reach
agreement on all of the provisions of a stipulated protective order.
Second, because of the parties’ inability to reach agreement by telephone on December
14th, Manpower’s counsel then made another offer to meet and confer in person with Plaintiff’s
counsel on Tuesday, January 8, 2013. As Manpower’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel
during their telephonic conference on December 14, 2012, Manpower’s lead counsel (Matthew
Kane) will be traveling out of state and will not be returning to the office until January 7, 2013.
As such, he is unavailable to meet and confer in person until January 8, 2013, and has agreed to
make himself available to meet in person with Plaintiff’s counsel on that date immediately
following his return to the office. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to that scheduling for an in-person
meet and confer during the parties’ telephonic meet and confer on December 14th. Notably,
Plaintiff does not claim that she will suffer any prejudice if that meeting does not occur until
January 8, 2013. Manpower, on the other hand, will suffer great prejudice if its lead counsel is
unable to participate in discussions relating to a protective order governing the use and disclosure
of its confidential information.
In short, Manpower’s counsel have made themselves available to meet and confer in
person with Plaintiff’s counsel on at least two separate occasions, but Plaintiff’s counsel has
obstructed such in-person meetings from occurring. Their letter to the Court yesterday is the
latest example of that, as evidenced by the fact that the parties had already agreed to meet and
confer in person on January 8, 2013, which is the earliest date that counsel for both parties are
available to do so. Accordingly, Manpower respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its
Order entered yesterday and issue an order requiring the parties to meet and confer in person on
January 8, 2013, as they had already agreed to do.
Respectfully submitted,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
/s/ Sylvia J. Kim
Sylvia J. Kim

43721989.2