Domingo v. Donohue

Filing 65

ORDER re 64 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Nestor C. Domingo, 53 Request filed by Nestor C. Domingo, 60 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Patrick R. Donohue. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 11/28/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
NESTOR DOMINGO,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Plaintiff,

No. C 11-5333 CRB (EDL)

12
v.
13

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR
ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING DISCOVERY
ISSUES (DKT. #53)

14
15

PATRICK DONAHOE, et al.,

16

Defendant.
___________________________________/

17
On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “request for assistance in resolving discovery
18
disputes,” discussing Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.
19
Dkt. # 53. Judge Breyer referred this case to this Court to resolve discovery disputes, and the Court
20
ruled on Plaintiff’s pending motion for injunctive relief and to modify subpoenas. Defendant has
21
now filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s request for assistance, arguing that the “request” should not be
22
construed as a motion since it was not properly filed as a motion, there was no effort to meet and
23
confer, and its discovery responses are adequate. Dkt. # 60. Plaintiff has filed a response to the
24
opposition, requesting that he be excused from the requirement of Local Rule 1-5(n) that meet and
25
confers be in person or over the phone because English is not his first language and oral
26
communications deter rather than enhance dialogue in his case. Dkt. # 64.
27
Plaintiff’s initial request for assistance was not filed as a motion and Plaintiff’s response
28
does not mention any inadequacies in Defendant’s document production. Therefore, it is unclear

1

whether there is still a live dispute about Defendant’s document production. If there is still a

2

dispute, Plaintiff may file a properly noticed motion detailing any perceived inadequacies in

3

Defendant’s discovery responses after engaging in appropriate meet and confer efforts with

4

opposing counsel. The Court declines to excuse Plaintiff from the requirement that meet and confer

5

efforts take place in person or over the phone. If Plaintiff finds that phone communications are

6

difficult, he may request that Defendant meet and confer with him in person subject to both sides’

7

availability. Plaintiff may also find it helpful to have a translator assist him during meet and confer

8

discussions.

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

Dated: November 28, 2012
_______________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge