Hines v. California Public Utilities Commission et al

Filing 214

ORDER Re 206 Plaintiff's Supplemental Notice to November 25, 2009 Oral Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/4/2009. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ Plaintiff has filed a document with the Court captioned "Supplemental Notice to November 25, 2009 Oral Deposition." Like her previous filing of November 25, 2009, see Docket No. 203 ("Plaintiff's Request Regarding Oral Deposition"), this filing does not contain any request for relief from this Court. To the extent Plaintiff is asking for any relief, that request is denied without prejudice because it does not appear that Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant about the issues raised in the filing. The Court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer about the issues raised in this filing in addition to the issues raised in Plaintiff's previous filing of November 25. If the parties are unable to resolve all issues raised in both this filing and the previous filing, then the parties shall file a joint letter with the Court no later than December 11, 2009.1 As a final point, the Court advises Plaintiff that filings with the Court are appropriate only where a party is seeking relief from the Court (i.e., a ruling from the Court on a dispute between the DONNA HINES, Plaintiff, No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO NOVEMBER 25, 2009 ORAL DEPOSITION (Docket No. 206) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In its order of December 1, 2009, see Docket No. 205 (order), the Court erroneously set the date for the filing of a joint letter as December 1 rather than December 11. This order now corrects that error.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

parties). Thus, if Plaintiff is simply making a request of Defendant (as here), she should not send a copy of that request to the Court; nor should she file a copy of that request with the Court. Likewise, any meet-and-confer exchange between the parties should not, as a general matter, be sent to or filed with the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2009 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. DONNA HINES, Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

___________________________________/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk. Donna Hines 268 Bush Street, #3204 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-205-3377 Dated: December 4, 2009 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By:

Leni Doyle Deputy Clerk

/s/