Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Lindquist Family LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 1/14/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/13/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)

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
CARPENTER PENSION TRUST,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),

No. C-13-01063 DMR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

14

LINDQUIST FAMILY LLC,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

On December 13, 2013, Plaintiffs and non-party Lauren Bockmiller filed a joint discovery

18

letter. [Docket No. 31.] On December 27, 2013, this court denied the joint discovery letter without

19

prejudice, as it appeared the parties were still in the process of meeting and conferring. [Docket No.

20

36.] The court ordered the parties to continue to meet and confer about the disputes raised in the

21

joint letter, and also ordered the parties to file a joint discovery letter regarding the remaining

22

discovery issues by January 9, 2014 if they were unable to resolve those disputes without court

23

intervention. The court also ordered Bockmiller to simultaneously lodge with the court the fifteen

24

documents listed on her privilege log (Docket No. 34) for in camera review if the parties were

25

unable to resolve their disputes. Id.

26
27
28

On January 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte letter in which they explain that, despite
Plaintiffs’ numerous efforts to contact Tim Winchester and Chuck Toombs, Bockmiller’s counsel,

1

Winchester and Toombs did not make themselves available to meet and confer as the court had

2

ordered. [Docket No. 37.] Nor has Bockmiller lodged the requested documents with the court.

3

The discovery disputes at hand concern, inter alia, Bockmiller’s assertion of attorney client

4

privilege over certain documents in her possession, custody, or control. “The burden is on the party

5

asserting the privilege to establish all the elements of the privilege.” United States v. Martin, 278

6

F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2002). Bockmiller’s counsel is therefore ordered to show cause by 12

7

p.m. on January 14, 2014, why their failure to follow the court’s orders as described above should

8

not result in a ruling against Bockmiller for failing to meet her burden of establishing the elements

9

of the privilege she has asserted. Failure to timely respond may result in such a ruling against
Bockmiller.

S
16

ER

H

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

2

R NIA

DONNA M. RYUa M. Ryu
Uniteddge Donn
Ju States Magistrate Judge

FO

15

LI

Dated: January 13, 2014
14

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

13

UNIT
ED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

NO

United States District Court

10

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C