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
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?