Molex v. The City and County of San Francisco

Filing 66

ORDER re discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on May 18, 2012. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JEANETTE MOLEX,

9

Plaintiff,

Case No.: C-4:11-1282-YGR (KAW)
ORDER

10

vs.

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This case has been referred to the undersigned for discovery purposes. See 28 U.S.C. §

16

636(b)(1)(A). The parties have submitted several joint letters regarding discovery disputes. Two of

17

the joint letters are untimely. See Dkt # 50, 56, 57. 1

18

The non-expert discovery cutoff date in this case was April 27, 2012. See Dkt #35 (Judge

19

Gonzalez Rogers' order granting continuance). The last day to file a joint letter was therefore May

20

4. See Local Rule 37-3 ("no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after

21

the fact discovery cut-off"). The parties filed the two untimely joint letters on May 7 and 9.

22

On May 3, plaintiff filed a motion to defer consideration or deny defendant's summary

23

judgment motion pursuant to Rule 56(d), claiming that defendant had delayed the filing of the joint

24

letters. Plaintiff's declaration attests that he sent plaintiff's portion of two of the joint letters

25

(apparently corresponding with the letters later filed at Dkt #48 and 50) to defense counsel on April

26

23. Dkt #47-1 at 2. Defense counsel did not respond. Plaintiff's counsel sent a follow-up email on

27

April 25, and defense counsel replied that she would "not be able to submit the City's portion of the

28

1

Docket entries 56 and 57 are copies of the same joint letter.

1

joint discovery letters within the timeframe requested." Id. Plaintiff's counsel sent two more joint

2

letters on April 26 (one of which apparently corresponds with Dkt #56). Plaintiff claims that by

3

May 3, 2012, defense counsel had not provided defendant's portion of the letters.
As noted above, the untimely joint letters were filed on May 7 and 9. Nearly two weeks after

4
5

the deadline to file the joint letters, defendant filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion to defer

6

consideration or deny defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt #63. In this filing, defense

7

counsel writes,

8

...between April 23 and April 26, the day before the discovery cutoff, Plaintiff sent
Defendant her portion of several joint discovery letters regarding many of the issues
addressed in this motion....The City provided its portion of the majority of those joint
letters as soon as possible. As of May 8,2 the parties have submitted four joint
discovery letters. However, had Plaintiff exercised more diligence, most if not all of
these outstanding discovery issues could have been resolved much earlier.

9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Defense counsel does not deny that it did not provide its portion of the

13

joint letters in time to meet the filing deadline, but it does argue that plaintiff could have begun the

14

process of resolving the discovery issues sooner.

15

Neither of the parties has submitted any explanation to date regarding what took place

16

between May 3, when plaintiff claims that defendant had not provided its portion of the joint letters,

17

and May 9, when the last of the joint discovery letters was filed. Nor has plaintiff explained why

18

she did not prepare her portions of the joint statement sooner.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Although the parties dated their final joint letter May 8, the letter was not filed on the court's docket
until 11:21 a.m. on May 9. Dkt #56. A second copy of the letter was filed on May 9 at 5:42 p.m. Dkt
#57.
2

1
2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Within two business days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file a request to have the two

3

joint letters deemed timely filed, demonstrating excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

6(b)(1)(B).

5
6

2. Within one day of the date of plaintiff's filing, defendant may file an opposition to plaintiff's
request.

7
8

DATE: May 18, 2012

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3