Farhang v. Indian institute of Technology Kharagpur et al

Filing 119

ORDER re 117 request for CMC. Signed by Judge Whyte on 4/13/10. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CMC--No. C-08-02658 RMW CCL

E-FILED on

4/13/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

MANDANA D. FARHANG, an individual, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR; TECHNOLOGY ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAINING SOCIETY; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI; PALLAB DASGUPTA; GURASHISH S. BRAR; RAKESH GUPTA; PRAVANJAN CHOUDHURY; SUBRAT PANDA; ANIMESH NASKAR, Defendants.

No. C-08-02658 RMW

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CMC

[Re Docket No. 117]

The court has received plaintiff's letter requesting a case management conference on May 28, 2010 as well as defendant Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur's ("IIT") letter opposing plaintiff's request. IIT correctly observes that Civil L.R. 7-1(a) requires a motion as the means for asking for a court order. However, the court will treat the letter request as a motion under Civil L.R. 6-1 for an order setting a case management conference on shortened time and to allow the commencement of discovery. In the future, strict compliance with procedural rules will be required.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The holding of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Conference has been postponed for a number of reasons including the delay in service of IIT, the motion to disqualify counsel, motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and other alleged deficiencies, and the filing of amended complaints. The court wants to expeditiously move this case forward but also does not want the parties to spend unnecessary time or incur substantial costs on issues that may be dismissed or have to be re-litigated once a currently unserved party is served and appears. The parties are to meet and confer by voice communication and then submit a joint plan for limited written discovery and disclosures pending the outcome of the current Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the setting of a Case Management Conference. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on such a discovery plan, they may submit on or before May 7, 2010 their individual proposals, and the court will order what, if any, discovery may be commenced. Any proposal submitted by plaintiff should specify when she anticipates that all defendants will have been served. If either party is concerned about the need to preserve any particular type or category of document, that type or category should be identified. The parties, of course, currently are under an obligation to maintain relevant documents. The motion to shorten time for the setting of a Case Management Conference and to Commence Discovery is otherwise denied without prejudice.

DATED:

4/13/10

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CMC--No. C-08-02658 RMW CCL 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Micah R. Jacobs Counsel for Defendant IIT: I. Neel Chatterjee Nitin Gambhir Theresa Ann Sutton [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated:

4/13/10

CCL Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CMC--No. C-08-02658 RMW CCL 3