Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes

Filing 31

Notice of Reference and Order Re Discovery Procedures, Denying 28 Motion for Protective Order Without Prejudice. Joint letter due by 01/18/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/04/2012.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 No. C-11-03638 SC (DMR) NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES v. 14 CENTEX HOMES, 15 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 16 17 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 18 The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 19 Defendant Centex Homes’ Motion for a Protective Order, as well as all further discovery. The 20 Motion for a Protective Order was noticed for hearing on January 27, 2012. 21 The court VACATES the current hearing date on January 27, 2012 and DENIES the Motion 22 for a Protective Order without prejudice. Any joint letter regarding the instant discovery dispute 23 (see section below entitled "Resolution of Discovery Disputes") shall be filed no later than January 24 18, 2012. 25 Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26 and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders. 27 Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general orders’ electronic 28 filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are 1 available at The parties’ failure to comply with any of the rules or 2 orders may be a ground for sanctions. 3 4 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, 5 the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. Instead, 6 as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to resolve their 7 disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and may not be 8 conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no 9 later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. Going issue-by-issue, the joint 12 letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal 13 authority; and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to the next issue. The 14 joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of court. In the rare instance that a joint 15 letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages, which shall include 16 an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. When appropriate, the parties may submit one 17 exhibit to the letter that sets forth each discovery request at issue in full, followed immediately by 18 the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in any such exhibit. 19 No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the court. The court will review the 20 submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. 21 In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after 22 exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil 23 L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the 24 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. 25 In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the court has found that it is often efficient 26 and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where 27 appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining 28 available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the court 2 1 expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted, 2 in the court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if 3 the court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal 4 attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good 5 cause must be set forth in the request. 6 7 8 9 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS All filings relating to a discovery dispute referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu shall list the civil case number and the district court judge’s initials followed by the designation “(DMR).” Under Civil L.R. 5-1(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing and mark it as a copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Clerk’s Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the 12 close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed 13 stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to 14 as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the 15 document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise 16 directed by the court. 17 PRIVILEGE LOGS 18 If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it 19 is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a 20 privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing part(ies) to assess whether 21 a document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log 22 shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each 23 category of similarly situated documents: 24 a. 25 The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range; 26 b. The subject matter addressed in the document; 27 c. The identity and position of its author(s); 28 d. The identity and position of all addressees and recipients; 3 1 e. 2 3 4 5 The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and f. The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected. Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: January 4, 2012 8 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?