Hunt v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 72

Notice of Reference and Order re Discovery Procedures re 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/31/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SUSAN HUNT, Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PROCEDURES Re: Dkt. Nos. 55-61 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 14 all discovery matters, including the parties’ seven joint discovery letter briefs filed on March 24, 15 2015 (Docket Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61). [Docket No. 67.] 16 The court has reviewed the joint discovery letters. Pursuant to the court’s Standing Order 17 regarding resolution of discovery disputes (see below), the undersigned requires parties to meet 18 and confer in person or by telephone to try to resolve their disagreements. It does not appear that 19 the parties have done so here; in fact, the parties represent that they last exchanged meet and 20 confer letters in January 2015. It appears that further meet and confer would be fruitful. 21 Therefore, the court orders the parties to meet and confer in person or by telephone by no later 22 than April 9, 2015 to attempt to narrow their disputes. Should any disputes remain after meeting 23 and conferring, the parties may file a single joint letter that does not exceed twelve pages 24 addressing all remaining disputes raised in the seven letters by no later than April 16, 2015. If 25 necessary, the court will set a hearing on any remaining disputes after reviewing the letter. 26 Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure, and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and Standing 28 Orders. Local rules, general orders, standing orders, and instructions for using the Court's 1 Electronic Case Filing system are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. Failure to comply 2 may result in sanctions. 3 4 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, 5 the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. 6 Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to 7 resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and 8 may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a 9 joint letter no later than five business days after the meet and confer session, unless otherwise directed by the court. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, which shall 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone regarding all 12 issues prior to filing the letter. The letter must also include a paragraph listing relevant case 13 management deadlines, including (1) the fact and expert discovery cut-off dates; (2) the last day 14 to hear or file dispositive motions; (3) claim construction or class certification briefing deadlines 15 and hearing dates; and (4) pretrial conference and trial dates. Going issue-by-issue, the joint letter 16 shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal 17 authority, and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to the next issue. 18 The joint letter shall not exceed eight pages (12-point font or greater; margins no less than one 19 inch) without leave of court. Parties are expected to plan for and cooperate in preparing the 20 joint letter so that each side has adequate time to address the arguments. In the rare instance 21 that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed three pages, which 22 shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. The parties shall submit one 23 exhibit that sets forth each disputed discovery request in full, followed immediately by the 24 objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in the exhibit. No 25 other exhibits shall be submitted without prior court approval. The court will review the 26 submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. Discovery 27 letter briefs must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of Motions and Related Filings > 28 Motions - General > "Discovery Letter Brief". 2 1 The court has found that it is often efficient and beneficial for counsel to appear in person 2 at discovery hearings. This provides the opportunity to engage counsel, where appropriate, in 3 resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining available to rule on disputes that 4 counsel are not able to resolve themselves. For this reason, the court expects counsel to appear 5 in person. Permission to attend by telephone may be granted upon written request made at least 6 one week in advance of the hearing if the court determines that good cause exists to excuse 7 personal attendance, and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective 8 discovery hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the request. 9 In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil L.R. 37- 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the 12 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. 13 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS 14 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(e)(7) and 5-2(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of 15 certain filings and mark it as a copy for “Chambers.” All chambers copies should be three-hole 16 punched, and must include tabs between exhibits. 17 Any stipulation or proposed order submitted by an e-filing party shall be submitted by 18 email to dmrpo@cand.uscourts.gov as a word processing attachment on the same day the 19 document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise 20 directed by the court. 21 22 PRIVILEGE LOGS If a party withholds responsive information by claiming that it is privileged or otherwise 23 protected from discovery, that party shall promptly provide a privilege log that is sufficiently 24 detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of privilege is justified. Unless the 25 parties agree to alternative logging methods, the log should include: (a) the title and description of 26 the document, including number of pages or Bates-number range; (b) the subject matter addressed 27 in the document; (c) the identity and position of its author(s); (d) the identity and position of all 28 addressees and recipients; (e) the date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on 3 1 which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and (f) the specific basis for 2 the claim that the document is privileged or protected. Communications involving trial counsel 3 that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a privilege log. Failure to 4 promptly furnish a privilege log may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection. 5 S 12 ER 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 R NIA FO onn Judge D H United States District Court Northern District of California RT 11 u a M. Ry NO 10 LI 9 D RDERE OO ______________________________________ IT IS S DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge A 8 Dated: March 31, 2015 UNIT ED 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 6 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?