Conklin v. Equifax Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 22 Motion to Appear by Telephone ; Continuing Case Management Conference; Setting Compliance Hearing. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MELISSA CONKLIN,

Case No. 15-cv-04315-YGR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

EQUIFAX INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 20, 22

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE; CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING

Defendant has filed a request and a motion to appear by telephone at the initial Case

12
13

Management Conference (“CMC”) set for December 21, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) The basis for

14

the motion is essentially one of convenience and the view that the underlying action does not

15

warrant a personal appearance. (Id. at 1.) As this Court has advised through its standing order:

16

These conferences are intended to be substantive and productive.
Accordingly, each party shall be represented at case management
conferences by counsel with authority to enter into stipulations and
make admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) and (c), as well as
fully prepared to address all of the matters in the CAND CMC Order
and Civil L.R. 16-10(b). Failure to do so shall be considered
grounds for sanctions. Because of the substantive quality of the
initial case management conference, telephonic appearances are
disfavored. The Court will grant requests to appear by telephone
only upon a compelling showing of good cause. The routine
inconveniences of travel do not constitute good cause.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Standing Order in Civil Cases § 6. Accordingly, the request is DENIED.

23

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this action and hereby CONTINUES

24

the Case Management Conference to January 11, 2016 so that the parties can determine whether

25

consent to a magistrate judge of their choice and for all purposes is warranted. The Northern

26

District’s use of magistrate judges for all purposes has been hailed as the model for the United

27

States.

28

In this regard, counsel shall personally review each magistrate judge’s profile and discuss

1

the option with both opposing counsel and their clients. Profiles of each magistrate judge and

2

their respective locations can be found at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. The Court

3

hereby SETS a compliance hearing on January 15, 2016 at 9:01 a.m. in the Federal Courthouse,

4

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. Counsel shall confirm compliance as

5

follows: by January 6, 2016, the parties shall file either (1) a joint stipulation to a magistrate

6

judge for all purposes, or (2) a joint statement verifying counsel have personally reviewed each

7

magistrate judge’s profile and have discussed the options as directed but have been unable to reach

8

consensus. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will

9

be taken off calendar. Failure to file the required joint filing may result in sanctions. If the parties
have not stipulated to a magistrate judge, the CMC will proceed before the undersigned as

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

scheduled herein.

12

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 20, 22.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: December 9, 2015

15
16

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2