Pierotti v. Regents of the University of California

Filing 101

Discovery Order re docket nos. 98, 99 and 100. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/23/2018. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIANE PIEROTTI,

Case No. 16-cv-02936-HSG (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 98, 99, and 100

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-10,
Defendant.

12
13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Diane Pierotti's Letter (Dkt. No. 98), Defendant The

14

Regents of The University of California's Letter (Dkt. No. 99), and Plaintiff's Reply Letter (Dkt.

15

No. 100). All three letters pertain to Plaintiff's request for a telephonic conference for the purpose

16

of compelling depositions. Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and

17

the record in this case, the Court issues the following order.

18

First, both parties' complete disregard for the undersigned's Standing Order Re: Discovery

19

is noted. The Standing Order requires parties to meet and confer in person before bringing a

20

discovery dispute to the Court's attention. See Standing Order ¶ 2. "If the parties are unable to

21

meet and confer as directed above, . . . the moving party shall file a written request for a

22

telephonic conference for the purpose of enforcing the Court's meet and confer requirement, or for

23

the Court to fashion an alternative procedure." Id. ¶ 3. The parties did not meet and confer in

24

person before filing their separate letters, file a written request for a telephonic conference to

25

enforce the Court's meet and confer requirement, or otherwise seek to be excused from the in-

26

person meet and confer requirement. “The Court will not excuse a party from the requisite in-

27

person meeting unless good cause is shown.” Standing Order ¶ 3. The parties have not even made

28

an effort to show good cause exists. Instead, Plaintiff attempts to skip this procedure by

1
2
3
4

req
questing a tel
lephonic con
nference on the dispute i
t
itself.
Second this Court has no autho
d,
ority to chan the disco
nge
overy cut-off requested b Plaintiff.
f
by
That authority is held by Ju
udge Haywo S. Gilliam Jr.
ood
m,
Finally, since both parties earlie stipulated to the seven deposition to be taken by Plaintif
,
p
er
d
n
ns
n
ff

5

afte Plaintiff was deposed Defendant''s objection t
er
w
d,
that one of t named de
the
eponents is n
now

6

irre
elevant is lat and therefore, waived The under
te,
d.
rsigned here orders th parties to schedule the
eby
he
e

7

rem
maining seve deposition so that the occur by August 6, 2
en
ns
ey
2018. The si
ignatories of the letters
f

8

and
d—if differen
nt—lead tria counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer in-p
al
d
d
person in the

9

und
dersigned's jury room on July 26, 20 at 9:00 am, to sche
n
018,
edule the dep
positions. If the parties
f
res
solve their di
ispute before the confere
e
ence, they sh promptly inform the Court and t Court
hall
y
e
the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sha vacate the conference
all
e
e.

12

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

13
14
15
16

Da
ated: July 23 2018
3,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
MA
ARIA-ELEN JAMES
NA
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

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