Weingand v. Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER re 83 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Harland Financial Solutions, Inc., 85 Counter Discovery Letter Brief filed by Michael Weingand. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 10/01/2012. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 MICHAEL WEINGAND,

Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)

12

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
LETTERS CONCERNING
DEPOSITION SCHEDULE

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 HARLAND FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 85

INC., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

This discovery dispute concerns the scheduling of depositions. The meet and confer
process has been unsuccessful, and counsel cannot even agree as to whether they met and
conferred. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that defendant’s counsel has made “no attempt to meet
and confer in person” concerning the dispute. Dkt. No. 85 at 1-2. Defendant’s counsel, on
the other hand, says “Defendant has met and conferred with Plaintiff in-person and
extensively through letters.” Dkt. No. 83 at 2.
Plaintiff’s counsel wishes to delay the long-scheduled deposition of Scott Holmes
from October 5, because counsel has a scheduling conflict in another federal case.
Plaintiff’s counsel also wishes to delay the defendant’s noticed depositions of plaintiff
Michael Weingand and his wife, Denise Weingand, from October 10 and 11, asserting that
in March 2012 the parties agreed to a priority of the depositions. See Dkt. No. 23 at 5.

28
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS

1 Plaintiff wants the Holmes deposition to occur first.
2

Unexplained in plaintiff’s submission are (1) why one of the other two attorneys of

3 record in the Johnson v. United Continental Holdings matter cannot appear before Judge
4 Chesney on October 5, while attorney Dow Patten takes the Holmes deposition; (2) why
5 another attorney at the Dow Patten firm cannot take the deposition of Holmes on October 5
6 if Mr. Patten is not available; and (3) what prejudice plaintiff will suffer in this case if the
7 Holmes deposition takes place after the deposition of plaintiff and Mrs. Weingand.
8

If the parties are unable to resolve this discovery dispute through further

9 communications among counsel, the Court will hold a discovery hearing on October 3,
10 2012, at 1:00 p.m. Telephonic appearances will not be permitted.
11

If a hearing is held, the Court will specifically inquire into two topics presented in the

12 dueling letter briefs: (1) the candor of counsel in describing the meet and confer process;
13 and (2) the “threatening messages” allegedly made by plaintiff’s counsel to the legal
14 assistant for defendant’s counsel. The Court will consider all remedies permissible under
15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including sanctions against client and counsel, in
16 addressing these issues.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Date: October 1, 2012

19

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS

2