Cozzi et al v. County of Marin et al

Filing 51

DISCOVERY ORDER re 49 Letter filed by County of Marin. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/22/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California MARIA COZZI, v. Plaintiff(s), No. C 08-03633 PJH (MEJ) DISCOVERY ORDER RE OCTOBER 20,2009 JOINT LETTER [Dkt. #49] MARIN COUNTY OF, Defendant(s). _____________________________________/ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On October 20, 2009, the parties in this matter filed a joint letter setting forth their positions on a dispute concerning Defendant County of Marin's interrogatories. Briefly stated, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed to serve answers to Defendant's interrogatories despite two extensions of time to serve the answers. Defendant therefore requests that the Court order Plaintiffs to serve their answers to the interrogatories, verified, under oath and without objections by a date certain. Defendant further requests that the Court order an in-person meet and confer three days after Plaintiffs serve their answers to resolve any issues with the responses. Finally, Defendant requests permission to file a motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs as a result of their failure to respond to its discovery requests. In response, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant's interrogatories are part of a larger "scorched earth" discovery strategy that Defendant has employed in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs state that they have responded to some of the interrogatories, but need additional time to respond to the remaining sets. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court give them until November 2, 2009 to answer all interrogatories at issue. Plaintiffs state that they agree to provide answers verified, under oath for all interrogatories by that date. Plaintiffs also oppose any request for sanctions by Defendant on the ground that they have never refused to provide the responses, but have been delayed from serving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California them because of the "extremely tight" discovery schedule. The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments and now ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall serve their answers (verified, under oath) to all outstanding interrogatories by November 2, 2009. 2. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in-person by Thursday, November 5, 2009 to resolve any issues arising from Plaintiffs' responses. 3. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for leave to file a motion for sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2009 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?