JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Berson

Filing 8

Notice of Reference and ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re Discovery Procedures; Order denying 3 Motion to Shorten Time. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 7 Applicant, Case No. 16-mc-80220-EMC (DMR) Related Case: 12-cr-0111 EMC 8 v. 9 BRIAN BERSON, 10 Respondent. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3 11 United States District Court Northern District of California NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PROCEDURES; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 12 13 all discovery matters. [Docket No. 6.] On October 7, 2016, Applicant JPMorgan Chase Bank, 14 N.A. (“JPMorgan”) filed a motion to compel Respondent Brian Berson’s compliance with its 15 subpoena and/or transfer the motion to the United States District Court for the District of 16 Massachusetts and a motion to shorten time on the briefing and hearing schedule for the motion to 17 compel. [Docket Nos. 1, 3.] Although JPMorgan did not submit a proposed briefing and hearing 18 schedule, it appears it sought a hearing on the motion to compel and/or transfer before an October 19 18, 2016 hearing in the underlying action in the District of Massachusetts (“the Mansor Action”). 20 Berson did not submit a response. 21 Civil Local Rule 6-3 governs motions to change time when there is not a stipulated 22 request. JPMorgan’s motion to shorten time does not comply with Rule 6-3. Specifically, 23 JPMorgan’s declaration does not “[s]et forth with particularity, the reasons for the requested 24 enlargement” and does not describe the efforts, if any, it made to obtain a stipulation from Berson 25 to shorten time.1 Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(1), (2). It also does not identify “the substantial harm or 26 1 27 28 In its motion, JPMorgan asserts that counsel corresponded with Berson regarding the motion to shorten time. Mot. at 4 (citing undated Kasollja Decl. Ex. K). However, the evidence cited in support of this assertion, Exhibit K, does not contain a discussion between counsel about the motion to shorten time. 1 prejudice that would occur” if the court did not change the time. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3). Although 2 JPMorgan asserts that there is a hearing scheduled for October 18, 2016 in the Mansor Action 3 “during which various discovery issues are likely to be addressed,” it does not assert that the court 4 will address this particular discovery dispute at the hearing. It also does not describe any 5 impending pretrial or trial deadlines in the Mansor Action that support an order shortening time. 6 Accordingly, the request to shorten time is denied. 7 The court sets the following briefing schedule on JPMorgan’s motion to compel and/or 8 transfer: Berson’s response is due by October 25, 2016. Any reply by JPMorgan is due by 9 November 1, 2016. The court will set a hearing on the motion to compel and/or transfer upon 10 completion of the briefing. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Going forward, the parties may seek judicial intervention in discovery disputes following 12 to the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District of 13 California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and Standing Orders. Local rules, general orders, 14 standing orders, and instructions for using the Court's Electronic Case Filing system are available 15 at Failure to comply may result in sanctions. 16 17 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, 18 the court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. 19 Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to 20 resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and 21 may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a 22 joint letter no later than five business days after the meet and confer session, unless otherwise 23 directed by the court. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, which shall 24 include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone regarding all 25 issues prior to filing the letter. The letter must also include a paragraph listing relevant case 26 management deadlines, including (1) the fact and expert discovery cut-off dates; (2) the last day 27 to hear or file dispositive motions; (3) claim construction or class certification briefing deadlines 28 and hearing dates; and (4) pretrial conference and trial dates. Going issue-by-issue, the joint letter 2 1 shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal 2 authority, and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to the next issue. 3 The joint letter shall not exceed five pages (12-point font or greater; margins no less than one 4 inch) without leave of court. Parties are expected to plan for and cooperate in preparing the 5 joint letter so that each side has adequate time to address the arguments. In the rare instance 6 that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed two pages, which 7 shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. The parties shall submit one 8 exhibit that sets forth each disputed discovery request in full, followed immediately by the 9 objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be included in the exhibit. No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior court approval. The court will review the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. Discovery 12 letter briefs must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of Motions and Related Filings > 13 Motions - General > “Discovery Letter Brief.” 14 All exhibits to discovery disputes should be separately filed on ECF (for example, if the 15 motion is Docket No. 30, and the declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket No. 31, Exhibit A would 16 be filed as Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit B would be Docket No. 31-2, and so on). All exhibits shall 17 also be filed in a searchable OCR format where possible. 18 The court has found that it is often efficient and beneficial for counsel to appear in person 19 at discovery hearings. This provides the opportunity to engage counsel, where appropriate, in 20 resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining available to rule on disputes that 21 counsel are not able to resolve themselves. For this reason, the court expects counsel to appear 22 in person. Permission to attend by telephone may be granted upon written request made at least 23 one week in advance of the hearing if the court determines that good cause exists to excuse 24 personal attendance, and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective 25 discovery hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the request. 26 In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after exhausting 27 good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil L.R. 37- 28 1(b) by contacting the court through the courtroom deputy. If the court is unavailable, the 3 1 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 2 3 Parties are reminded that court proceedings are presumptively public, and no document 4 shall be filed under seal without request for a court order that is narrowly tailored to cover only the 5 document, the particular portion of the document, or category of documents for which good cause 6 exists for filing under seal. If a party wishes to file a document under seal, that party shall first file 7 an administrative motion to seal in accordance with Local Rule 79-5. The parties need not file paper copies of the administrative motion to seal with the clerk’s 9 office. The parties only need to submit chambers copies of the administrative motion to seal and 10 related filings. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and unredacted — 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 so that the chambers staff does not have to re-assemble the whole brief or declaration, although 12 chambers copies should clearly delineate which portions are confidential (via highlighting). 13 Chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of 14 materials without special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded. If the parties 15 wish to dispose of documents filed under seal in some other way, they must expressly indicate as 16 much in their sealing motion and make arrangements to pick up the documents upon disposition of 17 the motion. 18 19 PROTECTIVE ORDERS If parties believe a protective order is necessary, they shall, where practicable, use one of 20 the model stipulated protective orders (available at 21 orders). Parties shall file one of the following with their proposed protective order: (a) a 22 declaration stating that the proposed order is identical to one of the model orders except for the 23 addition of case-identifying information or the elimination of language denoted as optional; (b) a 24 declaration explaining each modification to the model order, along with a redline version 25 comparing the proposed protective order with the model order; or (c) a declaration explaining why 26 use of one of the model orders is not practicable. 27 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS 28 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(e)(7) and 5-2(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of 4 1 certain filings and mark it as a copy for “Chambers.” All chambers copies should be double-sided 2 (when possible), three-hole punched along the left side of the page, and should bear the ECF filing 3 “stamp” (case number, docket number, date, and ECF page number) along the top of the page. All 4 exhibits shall be clearly delineated with labels along the right side. If the filing includes exhibits 5 over two inches thick, the parties shall place the chambers copy in a binder. 6 Any stipulation or proposed order submitted by an e-filing party shall be submitted by 7 email to as a word processing attachment on the same day the 8 document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise 9 directed by the court. PRIVILEGE LOGS 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 If a party withholds responsive information by claiming that it is privileged or otherwise 12 protected from discovery, that party shall produce a privilege log as quickly as possible, but no 13 later than fourteen days after its disclosures or discovery responses are due, unless the parties 14 stipulate to or the court sets another date. Privilege logs must be sufficiently detailed for the 15 opposing party to assess whether the assertion of privilege is justified. Unless the parties agree to 16 alternative logging methods, the log should include: (a) the title and description of the document, 17 including number of pages or Bates-number range; (b) the subject matter addressed in the 18 document; (c) the identity and position of its author(s); (d) the identity and position of all 19 addressees and recipients; (e) the date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on 20 which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and (f) the specific basis for 21 the claim that the document is privileged or protected. 22 Communications involving trial counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint need not 23 be placed on a privilege log. Failure to promptly furnish a privilege log may be deemed a waiver 24 of the privilege or protection. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2016 ______________________________________ DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 5

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?