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)

Download PDF
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

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?