Boy Racer Inc. v. Doe

Filing 32

Notice of Reference and ORDER re Discovery Procedures. Motions terminated: 25 Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time and 20 MOTION to Quash deposition subpoena or in the alternative for a protective order filed by Samuel Teitelbaum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 4/13/2012. (hlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2012)

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
BOY RACER INC,

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C-11-05628 MMC (DMR)
NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER
RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

v.

14

JOHN DOE,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17
18

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of

19

Non-Party Samuel Teitelbaum’s Motion to Quash Non-Party Deposition Subpoena or in the

20

Alternative for Protective Order ("Motion to Quash"), as well as all further discovery. The hearing

21

on the Motion to Quash noticed for May 18, 2012 has been vacated. Doc. no. 29.

22

The court DENIES the Motion to Quash without prejudice. Further, the court DENIES

23

Movant’s ex parte application for order shortening time. Any joint letter regarding the instant

24

discovery dispute (see section below entitled "Resolution of Discovery Disputes") shall be filed no

25

later than April 27, 2012.

26

Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

27

and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders.

28

Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general orders’ electronic

1

filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are

2

available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties’ failure to comply with any of the rules or

3

orders may be a ground for sanctions.

4
5

RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES
In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner,

as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to resolve their

8

disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and may not be

9

conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no

10

later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for both

11
For the Northern District of California

the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. Instead,

7

United States District Court

6

parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in

12

person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. Going issue-by-issue, the joint

13

letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal

14

authority; and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to the next issue. The

15

joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of court. In the rare instance that a joint

16

letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages, which shall include

17

an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. When appropriate, the parties may submit one

18

exhibit to the letter that sets forth each discovery request at issue in full, followed immediately by

19

the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in any such exhibit.

20

No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the court. The court will review the

21

submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary.

22

In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after

23

exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil

24

L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the

25

discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record.

26

In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the court has found that it is often efficient

27

and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where

28

appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining

2

1

available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the court

2

expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted,

3

in the court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if

4

the court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal

5

attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good

6

cause must be set forth in the request.

7
8
9

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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS

copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland

12

Clerk’s Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the

13

close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed

14

stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to

15

[e-mail] as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the

16

document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise

17

directed by the court.

18

PRIVILEGE LOGS

19

If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it

20

is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a

21

privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing part(ies) to assess whether

22

a document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log

23

shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each

24

category of similarly situated documents:

25

a.

26

The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range;

27

b.

The subject matter addressed in the document;

28

c.

The identity and position of its author(s);

3

1

d.

The identity and position of all addressees and recipients;

2

e.

The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent

3
4
5
6

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.

7
8

Dated: April 13, 2012

9
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

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