Wells et al v. The Regents of the University of California et al

Filing 41

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY DISPUTE - SIGNED (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/6/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LORRAINE WELLS, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01700-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Defendants.

12
13
14

Defendants have filed a discovery dispute letter with the Court regarding the scheduling of
plaintiffs’ depositions. Dkt. No. 39. This is the first discovery dispute in this case.

15

Defendants ask the Court to order plaintiffs to make themselves available for deposition

16

before the end of the calendar year or else to extend the discovery cut-off, currently set for April 1,

17

2016. Dkt. Nos. 29, 39. Defendants state that “the parties have met and conferred in good faith”

18

but have been unable to reach a resolution. Dkt. No. 39 at 1. The discovery dispute letter contains

19

defendants’ statement but includes no statement from plaintiffs.

20

The Court’s standing order requires that parties meet and confer in person to resolve

21

discovery disputes, and if no resolution is possible, then to file “a concise joint statement of 5

22

pages or less, stating the nature and status of their dispute.” Judge Illston’s Standing Order at 1,

23

available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/siorders.

24

Defendants’ discovery dispute letter fails to comply with the Court’s standing order for

25

two reasons. First, the Court surmises that the parties have not met and conferred in person, given

26

that the letter fails to so state and that defendants explain they “provided Plaintiffs’ counsel two

27

court days to provide a statement on behalf of Plaintiffs, but he did not respond . . . .” Dkt. No. 39

28

at 1. Second, the parties have failed to submit a joint statement.

1
2

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion, without prejudice to refiling in
accordance with the Court’s standing order.

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
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