Mazzaferro v. Stanaland et al

Filing 127

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES. Show Cause Response due by 12/23/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/12/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2013)

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
RONALD MAZZAFERRO,

12
13

No. C-11-04097 DMR

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER
RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

v.

14

MANSUETTO LENCI,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17
18

I. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In an order dated November 25, 2013, Judge Illston noted that “[t]he parties’ case

19

management conference statements refer to a number of discovery disputes. The parties are hereby

20

ordered to expeditiously resolve all pending disputes with Magistrate Judge Ryu in order to be

21

prepared for further motion practice and/or trial.” [Docket No. 123.] On December 5, 2013, this

22

court ordered both parties to participate in a telephonic hearing on December 12, 2013 to resolve the

23

discovery disputes raised in the parties’ case management conference statements (Docket Nos. 117

24

and 119). [Docket No. 125.] The hearing was held as scheduled. Defendant appeared by telephone;

25

Plaintiff failed to appear.1

26
27
28

1

Upon noting Plaintiff’s absence in the courtroom, the court attempted to reach Plaintiff by
telephone but was unsuccessful.

1

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by filing and serving a written statement by December 23,

2

2013 explaining why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the discovery hearing.

3

The undersigned notes that Plaintiff also failed to appear at the case management conference before

4

Judge Illston on November 22, 2013. [Docket No. 124.] Given these repeated absences, Plaintiff is

5

ordered to show cause by filing and serving a written statement by December 23, 2013 why this

6

court should not issue a report and recommendation to Judge Illston that the case be dismissed for

7

failure to prosecute.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

II. DISCOVERY DISPUTES
The court has reviewed and considered the discovery disputes identified in the parties’ most
recent case management conference statements.
Defendant Mansuetto Lenci raised two identifiable discovery concerns relating to (1)

12

documents Plaintiff allegedly refused to produce and (2) costs associated with retaking Plaintiff’s

13

deposition.22 [Docket No. 119 at 2-3.] Defendant stated at the hearing that the issue regarding the

14

documents is moot. With respect to Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant complains that Plaintiff failed

15

to meet and confer to schedule a date for the retaking of Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant also seeks

16

to be prospectively reimbursed for costs he would incur in traveling to California to take Plaintiff’s

17

deposition. Both of these issues are moot because Defendant failed to timely move to compel

18

Plaintiff to re-appear for his deposition despite having nearly five months after the April 23, 2013

19

discovery hearing to do so. See Docket No. 80 (discovery cutoff was September 6, 2013); Civ. L.R.

20

37-3 (no motions to compel may be filed more than seven days after the discovery cutoff).

21

Defendant cannot seek reimbursement for costs associated with a deposition that did not occur.

22

Plaintiff also raised several discovery issues in his case management conference statement.

23

See Docket No. 117 at 7-14 (describing Plaintiff’s requests for accounting documents and

24

documents and deposition testimony from Edith Mazzaferri). These appear to be the same issues

25

that the court has previously resolved, see Docket Nos. 68, 100, 110, and the information presented

26
27
2

28

This court previously ordered Plaintiff to submit to a second deposition and to pay Defendant’s
reasonable travel costs for the deposition. See Tr. of Apr. 23 Hearing [Docket No. 110] at 24:16-21.

2

1

to the court does not warrant reconsideration of the court’s prior determinations. Plaintiff failed to

2

appear at the hearing to argue otherwise.

3

Accordingly, there are no more outstanding discovery disputes in this action.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2013
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
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

3