Flight Vehicles Consulting, Inc. et al v. United States et al

Filing 12

NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES re 4 . Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 04/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco
FLIGHT VEHICLES CONSULTING, INC.,
et al.,

No. C 12-01183 CW (LB)

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
13

v.

NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND
ORDER RE DISCOVERY
PROCEDURES

14

UNITED STATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

16
17

The district court has referred Flight Vehicles Consulting, Inc., Robert Manashi, and Nahrin

18

Manashi’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Amended Petition to Quash Summons, electronically filed on

19

March 16, 2012, which is a discovery matter, to United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

20

Order of Reference, ECF No. 11; Amended Petition, ECF No. 4. The Amended Petition was not

21

noticed for hearing.

22

Parties who require this court’s assistance in resolving of a discovery dispute normally are

23

directed to comply with procedures set forth in the undersigned’s standing order (attached) and to

24

submit a joint letter, rather than a formal discovery motion.1 The normal process may not be the best

25

one for this situation, though, given that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and that it is not entirely

26
27
28

1

Those procedures require, among other things, that if a meet-and-confer by other means
does not resolve the parties' dispute, lead counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person. If
that procedure does not resolve the disagreement, the parties must file a joint letter brief instead of a
formal motion. The letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of “Motions and
Related Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.”
C 12-01183 CW (LB)
NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER

1

clear whether Plaintiffs met all of the procedural and jurisdictional requirements for filing a formal

2

motion to quash summonses issued to third parties, see 26 U.S.C. § 7609.

3

Thus, the court adopts this modified procedure. It denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended

4

Petition and directs the parties to comply with the standing order. But if at the meet and confer

5

contemplated by the order, the parties believe that resolution of the dispute would be best

6

accomplished through the ordinary motions process, they may file a informal letter that generally

7

complies with the court’s standing orders for discovery disputes but that also explains why a

8

motions process is preferable and proposes a briefing schedule. After reviewing the letter submitted,

9

the court will evaluate whether further proceedings are necessary, including any further briefing or

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

argument.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2012

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

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

C 12-01183 CW (LB)
NOTICE OF REFERRAL AND ORDER

2