AFT Local 2121 et al v. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Filing 94

ORDER regarding 88 2/15/17 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 2/24/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AFT LOCAL 2121, ET AL.,

Case No. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER REGARDING 2/15/17 JOINT
LETTER

v.
9
10
11

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR
COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES,
et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 88

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On February 15, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the terms of a

14

stipulated protective order, and ACCJC’s responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of

15

Requests for Production of Documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 88 at 1.) Thereafter, the joint letter

16

and all other discovery disputes were referred to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 89.)

17

Upon review of the joint letter, the Court orders the parties to stipulate to the Northern

18

District’s Model Protective Order for Standard Litigation, subject to the agreed upon modification

19

to ¶ 9, whereby ACCJC would inform a non-party institution, whose information is requested, of

20

the discovery request within 10 days, and the institution would then have 21 days to object or seek

21

a protective order. (Joint Letter at 2.) The stipulated protective order shall be filed within 7 days

22

with the required declaration of counsel. (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 11.)

23

Should one or more of the parties later deem other modifications to the stipulated protective order

24

necessary, they shall meet and confer in an attempt to obtain a stipulation. A motion to modify

25

should only be filed if those efforts prove futile.

26

Furthermore, within 14 days of the entry of the protective order, ACCJC shall provide

27

supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production of Documents. Should any

28

disputes arise pertaining to those responses or any other discovery device, the parties shall meet

1

and confer in an attempt to narrow the disputed requests, and the scope thereof, before filing a

2

subsequent joint letter. All future joint letters shall be formatted to comply with the Court’s

3

Standing Order:

4
5
6
7

A. Request No. 3
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

8

deficient and the relief requested.]

9

Defendant’s Position

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]
B. Request No. 4
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

15

deficient and the relief requested.]

16

Defendant’s Position

17

[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

18
19

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Compliance with the format provided will

20

facilitate the Court’s resolution of any remaining disputes, as the parties will be addressing the

21

same issues. Additionally, for each disputed request, the parties should address Rule 26’s

22

proportionality requirement.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2