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)
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 http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. 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
dmrpo@cand.uscourts.gov 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?