Hunt v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING 87 REQUEST TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/28/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUSAN HUNT,

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SET
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
9
10

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Re: Dkt. No. 87

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion for an Order Shortening Time

13

For Hearing On The Parties’ Joint Discovery Letters, which also requests a case management

14

conference before May 3, 2015. Dkt. No 87. Judge Ryu has set a hearing regarding the parties’

15

current discovery disputes on May 8, 2015, on shortened time. Dkt. Nos. 79, 81 and 88.

16

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to set a case management conference before May 3,

17

2015. The Court will determine what, if any, extension of any deadline is warranted after the

18

resolution of the matters to be heard on May 8, 2015. The Court also will decide at that time

19

whether a case management conference is necessary.

20

The Court has already extended the discovery cutoff date twice in less than two months.

21

The fact that so many purportedly unresolvable issues are arising at this late date in a case pending

22

since December 2013 does not speak well of the parties’ meet and confer efforts. The Court takes

23

a dim view of timing “emergencies” that could and should have been averted by earlier good-faith

24

discussion and cooperation.

25

Before either party seeks any further extension of time, the parties are again directed to

26

meet and confer in good faith to determine whether a joint proposal is possible. Meeting and

27

conferring does not mean each side reciting its position, then declaring that a standoff exists which

28

requires the Court’s “assistance” to resolve. Rather, the meet and confer process described in the

1

Court’s Civil Standing Order requires the parties to focus on identifying the core disputes,

2

narrowing such disputes where possible, and striving to agree on a reasonable proposed resolution

3

whenever possible.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/28/2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2