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)

Download PDF
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

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?