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)

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

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?