Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH re 55 First MOTION to Shorten Time to Bring Motion to Quash Subpoena and For Protective Order filed by Jobscience, Inc., 56 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion filed by Jobscience, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 10, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JOBSCIENCE, INC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 13-04519 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
CVPARTNERS, INC, et al.,

ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Defendants.
/
On April 9 at 11:13 a.m., plaintiff filed a motion to shorten time, appending a “motion to

16

quash subpoenas to plaintiff’s expert Kenneth Amron or in the alternative for a protective order,”

17

noticed for April 17 (this date is not available on the undersigned judge’s calendar).

18

At 4:45 p.m., plaintiff filed a notice to “withdraw its motion to shorten time to hear

19

plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena and for protective order” (Dkt. No. 56). The motion to

20

shorten time is thus DENIED AS MOOT. The notice, however, is ambiguous about whether the

21

motion to quash proceeds, whether the motion will be briefed, and whether the parties seek a

22

hearing on the motion. In any event, the motion to quash does not comply with the rules.

23

First, an October 2012 order stated that requests for discovery relief must be summarized

24

in a letter not to exceed three pages, after the parties have met and conferred (Dkt. No. 17).

25

This was not done. Instead, plaintiff filed a noticed motion exceeding three pages.

26
27
28

1

Second, before a discovery request or motion is entertained, the parties must have

2

previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.

3

See FRCP 26(c), Local Rule 37-1, October 2012 order. The letter brief or motion should so

4

certify. Here, on April 7, plaintiff emailed lead counsel for defendants. On April 8, plaintiff left

5

a message with defense counsel’s assistant. On April 9 at 11:13 a.m., plaintiff filed this motion

6

without a meet-and-confer (Terry Decl. ¶ 5). The parties must meet-and-confer in person or via

7

telephone in a good-faith effort to resolve all discovery disputes. If and only if this has been

8

done and a dispute remains, the parties may file a discovery letter in accordance with the

9

October 2012 order. The parties will then be required to attend an in person meet-and-confer in
the Court’s jury room and a discovery hearing will be set. Only attorneys who personally

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

participate in the meet-and-confer may be heard at the hearing.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 10, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2