Terrell v. Harder Mechanical Contractors Inc et al

Filing 165

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re Failure to Comply with Standing Order Re Discovery Disputes. Show Cause Response due by 7/15/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/06/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TERRELL, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C-10-01080 CW (DMR) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STANDING ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES HARDER MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC ET AL, 14 Defendants. 15 ___________________________________/ 16 17 On June 9, 2011, the parties filed three letters regarding various discovery disputes. Two of 18 the letters violated this Court’s Standing Order regarding discovery disputes as it appeared that the 19 parties had not adequately engaged in thorough and meaningful meet and confer proceedings and the 20 disputes were not submitted through the joint letter process as required by the Standing Order. 21 [Docket Nos. 144 & 145.] On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the parties to 22 engage in further meet and confer proceedings and submit any remaining dispute for resolution 23 pursuant to the Court’s joint letter procedure by no later than June 23, 2011. The Court also 24 explicitly stated that the parties’ continued failure to follow the Standing Order would result in 25 sanctions. [Docket No. 147.] 26 Inexplicably, on June 23, 2011, Defendants Fluor Construction, Gene Arceneaux and Harder 27 Mechanical Contractors, Inc. submitted two letters to the Court outlining discovery disputes, both of 28 which did not comply with the Standing Order as they were submitted solely on behalf of 1 Defendants. [Docket Nos. 154 & 155.] Neither letter provided an explanation as to why a joint 2 letter was not possible, as required by the Standing Order. Plaintiff Linda Terrell filed responses to 3 both letters on June 27, 2011. [Docket Nos. 158 & 159.] 4 The issues presented in Defendants’ second June 23, 2011 letter (Docket No. 155) are the 5 exact same issues presented in Defendants’ June 9, 2011 letter (Docket No. 145), which the Court 6 rejected for noncompliance with the Standing Order. As to the disputes described in Defendants’ 7 first June 23, 2011 letter (Docket No. 154), it again appears that the parties have not adequately 8 engaged in thorough and meaningful meet and confer proceedings regarding the issues presented, as 9 required by the Standing Order. By no later than July 15, 2011, each party is separately ordered to show cause in writing why sanctions for repeated failure to comply with court orders should not issue, including denial of 12 the requests for relief described in the June 23, 2011 letters and/or monetary sanctions. Each party’s 13 brief shall not exceed five (5) pages, double-spaced. ER H 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 R NIA FO RT 18 DONNA M. RYU na M. Ryu n UnitedJStates Do udge Magistrate Judge LI 17 Dated: July 6, 2011 DERED O OR IT IS S A 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 15 S 14 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O For the Northern District of California 11 NO United States District Court 10 N D IS T IC T R OF C

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?