Ellena v. Standard Insurance Company et al

Filing 83

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2013. 1. Defendant, which did not oppose Plaintiff's motion to shorten time, shall have until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2013 to notify Plaintiff whether it opposes Plaint iff's request for leave to serve a revised expert report. 2. If Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's request for leave to serve a revised expert report, the parties shall file, no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2013, a st ipulation allowing Plaintiff to serve a revised expert report. 3. If Defendant does oppose Plaintiff's request for leave to serve a revised expert report, the parties are directed to meet and confer and file, in accordance with the undersigned's standing order, a joint discovery dispute letter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 13, 2013. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/11/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
CASSAUNDRA ELLENA,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-05401 SC (LB)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2013

v.
[Re: ECF No. 66]

14

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
___________________________________/
17
18

On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion “to shorten time for hearing on Plaintiff’s

19

motion for leave to serve revised expert witness report.” Motion, ECF No. 66. Plaintiff did not,

20

however, file the underlying motion for leave to serve a revised expert report.

21

Even so, the parties should have complied with the undersigned’s standing order, which, as the

22

parties know, establishes procedures for resolving discovery disputes. This is a discovery dispute

23

(or at least it might be, if Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request). If the court’s procedures had been

24

followed, the court would have received a joint discovery letter brief, rather than a motion. This

25

would have given the court a document that contains both Plaintiff’s arguments for why she should

26

be able to serve a revised expert report and, if applicable, Defendant’s arguments against it. (In this

27

case, the court notes that Plaintiff says that Defendant’s counsel did not respond to her counsel’s

28

email about serving an amended expert report.) And the court could have more easily handled this

ORDER
C 12-05401 SC (LB)

1
2

situation.
To avoid further confusion, the court adopts the following procedure:
1. Defendant, which did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time, shall have until 12:00 p.m.

4

on Thursday, December 12, 2013 to notify Plaintiff whether it opposes Plaintiff’s request for leave

5

to serve a revised expert report.

6

2. If Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for leave to serve a revised expert report, the

7

parties shall file, no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2013, a stipulation allowing

8

Plaintiff to serve a revised expert report.

9

3. If Defendant does oppose Plaintiff’s request for leave to serve a revised expert report, the parties

10

are directed to meet and confer and file, in accordance with the undersigned’s standing order, a joint

11

discovery dispute letter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 13, 2013.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: December 11, 2013
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
C 12-05401 SC (LB)

2