Myrah Martinez et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 54

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER BRIEF DATED DECEMBER 17, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/23/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco
MYRAH MARTINEZ, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. 3:15-cv-01953-JST (LB)

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
LETTER BRIEF DATED DECEMBER
17, 2015

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

[Re: ECF No. 53]

16

The parties have a discovery dispute. (Joint Letter, ECF No. 53.1) The court finds the matter

17

suitable for disposition without a oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The court denies the

18

plaintiffs’ motion for discovery.

19

The defendants say that the plaintiffs did not provide their position before filing the letter brief.

20

(Id. at 4.) The plaintiffs’ reason apparently was that they thought it was not “fair” to provide their

21

position ahead of time. (Id.) This approach violates the court’s process for discovery disputes. (See

22

10/29/15 Order, ECF No. 47 at 2.) At best, that process is meant to require collaboration: the parties

23

discuss their positions, agree on what they can, define what they cannot, describe their disputes, and

24

submit their best compromises. At worst, it can mimic the briefing process (position, opposition, and

25

reply) and get a dispute to the court for resolution in a time period that is speedier than the ordinary

26

five weeks for a motion. Either way, not providing a position in advance does not enable a

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the tops of the documents.
ORDER
No. 3:15-cv-01953-JST (LB)

1

meaningful response. The court thus denies the discovery dispute for failure to comply with the

2

court’s process. The plaintiffs may not withhold their dispute from the defendants, elicit a response

3

that the defendants characterize as “operating in a vacuum” (Joint Letter, ECF No. 53 at 4), and then

4

expect the court to decide the dispute.

5

Moreover, the dispute apparently is about the production of contact information for minors

6

identified in incident reports. The defendants dispute that the incident reports contain contact

7

information:

8
9
10

In the “issue” set forth by Mr. Masuhara, he includes, erroneously, that the “contact information
of minors has been has been redacted from documents produced. The incident reports do not
include such information. They only include (in some instances) the names of the minor involved
in the incident. Some of the incident reports simply refer to the minor as “resident” without even
a name attached. Since defendants are being kept in the dark about plaintiffs’ position in this
joint letter, it is unclear what “contact” information is being referred to in the issue statement.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
(Id. at 4 n.2.) This fundamental disagreement about what is at stake illustrates why the court cannot

13

decide the dispute in this procedural context.

14

Finally, the court observes that the information that the plaintiffs seek may be relevant. And if

15

the defendants obtained the records to use in this litigation via the petition process in Welfare &

16

Institutions Code § 827, the court cannot see why the redactions cannot be produced pursuant to

17

court order so long as their use is governed by a protective order. Put another way, it is one thing to

18

require the plaintiffs to pursue a process to obtain records that the defendants do not have. It is

19

another to resist production of records that the defendants already obtained via a section 827

20

petition. That said, given that the defendants did not see (and therefore could not respond) to the

21

plaintiffs’ arguments, the court will not order that remedy without a robust response from the

22

defendants.

23

The court thus orders the parties to discuss the dispute now that the defendants have seen the full

24

letter brief. After discussing it, the plaintiffs may submit to the defendants a revised letter brief of no

25

more than three pages. Within five business days of receiving the revised letter brief, the defendants

26

must respond in up to three pages. Within five business days after that, the plaintiffs then may reply

27

in one page and include their best proposed compromise. Then, within two business days, the

28

defendants must respond with their best proposed compromise. Within one business day after that,
the parties must confer on their compromises and exchange any updated proposed compromises. The
ORDER
No. 3:15-cv-01953-JST (LB)

2

1

plaintiffs must then file the final letter brief under the Civil Event category of “Motions and Related

2

Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.” After reviewing the joint letter brief, the

3

court will evaluate whether future proceedings are necessary, including any further briefing or

4

argument.

5

This resolves ECF No. 53.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: December 23, 2015

8

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

ORDER
No. 3:15-cv-01953-JST (LB)

3