Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 217

Discovery Order requiring parties to meet and confer in person on 6/19/2013 and continuing discovery hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to compel 207 until 6/25/2013 before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on May 29, 2013. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TODD ASHKER, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (NJV) Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 MATHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON ON JUNE 19, 2013 RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL; CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 207 12 13 Plaintiffs have filed motion to compel (Doc. No. 207), which is currently set to be heard on 14 June 18, 2013. In their opposition to the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs did not meet and 15 confer regarding each disputed discovery request. Doc. No. 211 at 3-4. While Plaintiffs’ counsel 16 declares that he met and conferred with counsel for Defendants (Doc. No. 207 at 15), he has not 17 complied fully with the court’s Standing Order, which states that, 18 19 20 21 22 23 [i]n the event a discovery dispute arises, counsel for the party seeking discovery shall in good faith confer in person with counsel for the party failing to make that discovery in an attempt to resolve the dispute without the Court's involvement, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil L.R. 37-1(a). The meeting must be in person, except where good cause is shown why a telephone conference is adequate. A declaration setting forth these meet and confer efforts, and the final positions of each party, shall be included in the moving papers. The Court will not consider discovery motions unless the moving party has complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and Civil L.R. 37-1. 24 The court has observed the parties’ relationship to be professional and generally cooperative, and 25 believes that further meet and confer efforts between the parties could be fruitful. The parties will 26 participate in a settlement conference with the undersigned on June 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. In the 27 event the case does not settle on that day, the parties shall use the remainder of the day to meet and 28 confer, in person, regarding the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The court expects the parties to 1 discuss, in person, each of the contested discovery requests. The undersigned shall be available to 2 offer guidance during the meet and confer session. In the event the parties are unable to resolve 3 all the issues on their own, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is continued until June 25, 4 2013, at 1:00 p.m. The parties shall appear telephonically by dialing 1-888-684-8852 and entering 5 1868782# as the access code. 6 Plaintiffs’ reply is due on May 31, 2013, and should be filed at that time. The parties may 7 also file separate two-page letter briefs no later than noon on June 24, 2013 to update the court on 8 the outcome of their meet and confer efforts and identify what issues need to be addressed at the 9 June 25, 2013 hearing. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 Dated: May 29, 2013 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 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?