Netscape Communications Corporation et al v. Federal Insurance Company et al

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Denying 54 Motion to Compel (pvtlc1) (Filed on 10/17/2006)

Download PDF
Netscape Communications Corporation et al v. Federal Insurance Company et al Doc. 60 Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 60 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOR THE RN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court 11 12 For the Northern District of California NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 06-0198 JW (PVT) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A PROPERLY SUPPORTED MOTION On September 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, but failed to file copies of the actual discovery requests at issue.1 On October 16, 2006 this court issued an interim order requiring Plaintiff to cure that defect by filing the requests by 9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2006 (the date set for the hearing). Plaintiff failed to comply with that order, instead again filing a document purporting to set forth the requests and responses, and which Plaintiff's counsel for the first time admitted "differs substantially from the original request and responses." Based on the papers submitted by the parties, and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. OR D E R, page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 60 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 to filing a properly supported motion. Without copies of the original requests, as served on Defendant, there is nothing for this court to compel. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only authorize the court to compel responses to requests that have been served as required by those rules. There is no legal authority for a court to "compel" a party to comply with requests modified pursuant to meet and confer efforts where that party does not agree with the scope of the purportedly agreed to modified language. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a properly supported motion to compel. While Plaintiffs' failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has resulted in a waste of time and resource for the parties (as well as this court), any prejudice to Defendant can be addressed through a sanctions award to Defendant for the duplicate motion work in the event Plaintiffs re-file the motion.2 Dated: 10/17/06 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL Unit ed States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 12 For the Northern District of California 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 If Plaintiffs wonder why they are paying for duplicative motion work for both sides, Plaintiffs' counsel should give a copy of this order to their clients. OR D E R, page 2 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?