Pearson et al v. State of California et al

Filing 45

Discovery Order re 44 MOTION for Sanctions AND CONTEMPT AGAINST NONPARTY JOHN C. HISERODT, M.D., Ph.D. In the attached order, the court directs the disputants in the dispute at ECF No. 44 to engage in the joint-letter-brief process described in ECF No. 43 with the expectation that they ought to be able to resolve the dispute next week. This is a faster process than the five-week process that attends the filing of a motion. Because the defendants say they tried to work out the dispute informally, the court leaves the motion and 10/27/22 hearing in place with the expectation that the parties ought to be able to resolve this informally. The court asks the parties to provide the nonparty with a copy of the order and this accompanying docket entry. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/18/2022)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division United States District Court Northern District of California 11 AKAYSIA PEARSON, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05726-CRB (LB) Plaintiffs, 12 DISCOVERY ORDER v. 13 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Re: ECF No. 44 Defendants. 15 16 The defendants moved to compel a nonparty John Hiserodt’s s compliance with a subpoena 17 18 issued to him to produce information about a second-opinion autopsy that he performed — at the 19 request of the guardian ad litem for plaintiff N.P — on decedent Coltrane Pearson.1 The trial judge 20 previously referred discovery disputes to the undersigned, and the court gave notice of its 21 discovery-dispute procedures.2 22 For clarity, for the purposes of third-party subpoenas and discovery disputes, the court’s 23 standing order’s instructions to “parties” is meant to refer to the participants in a third-party 24 discovery dispute (even if they are not formal parties to the underlying litigation). The court views 25 the joint-letter-brief process as more efficient than the five-week motion process because parties 26 27 28 1 Mot. – ECF No. 44. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 2 Orders – ECF Nos. 41, 43. ORDER – No. 20-cv-05726-CRB (LB)  1 can (1) talk with each other, see each other’s positions, try to find areas of compromise, and work 2 out disputes amongst themselves, and (2) narrow, sharpen, and focus the issues they cannot 3 resolve before they present those issues to the court. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 4 No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB), 2018 WL 2294281, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2018). It usually is 5 faster to file a letter brief. The approach also avoids sanctions because the more streamlined 6 process usually resolves the disputes without a formal motion to compel. The court hopes that 7 parties (and third parties) approach the process in good faith. The court directs the parties to engage in that process. Because the defendants describe their 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute informally, the court does not follow its customary 10 practice of denying the motion without prejudice in favor of the letter-brief process.3 The motion 11 remains on calendar, and the briefing schedule remains in effect. But the court hopes that the 12 pending motion provides some incentive for the parties to work out the dispute next week. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 18, 2022 ____________________ 15 LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Mot. – ECF No. 44 at 2. ORDER – No. 20-cv-05726-CRB (LB) 2 

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?