Marroquin v. Ashron Construction & Restoration, Inc et al

Filing 42

ORDER re 38 Plaintiffs' Discovery Dispute Report #1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/1/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014)

1

*E-Filed: April 1, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

CESAR GONZALEZ MARROQUIN and
VINCENT DE LA TORRE

12
Plaintiff,
13

No. C13-00421 HRL
INTERIM ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’
DISCOVERY DISPUTE REPORT #1

v.
[Re: Docket No. 38]

14

ASHRON CONSTRUCTION &
RESTORATION, INC., ET AL.,

15
16
17

Defendants.
____________________________________/
Plaintiffs Cesar Gonzalez Marroquin and Vincent De La Torre bring federal and state wage

18

and hour claims against Defendants arising from their work on various public works projects.

19

During discovery, Plaintiffs requested production of time and payroll records, some of which

20

Defendants produced. Plaintiffs assert that as to Marroquin they still require time and payroll

21

records for 2009 and part of 2010 through 2011, and as to De La Torre they still need time and

22

payroll records for all but one project from 2009 through 2010. Fact discovery cutoff was March

23

14, 2014, and consequently the last day to file a report seeking an order to compel was March 21.

24

On that date, Plaintiffs unilaterally filed the instant Discovery Dispute Report. “Essentially, this

25

Report memorializes an agreement that Defendants will produce any remaining responsive

26

documents or a statement that the documents do not exist.” Although Defendants did not participate

27

in the Report, Plaintiffs represent that the “parties propose” a deadline of Friday, March 28, 2014.

28

1

If Defendants have not yet made their production pursuant to the purported agreement, then

2

within three days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer in person, and if

3

necessary, file a Joint Supplement not to exceed five pages in which (1) Plaintiffs indicate what

4

documents it believes are still missing, and (2) Defendants explain why they have not (or whether

5

they believe they have) produced the requested documents or a statement that they do not exist.

6

Alternatively, if Defendants have already made their production or the parties otherwise resolve the

7

dispute, then within the same three day period, Plaintiffs shall file a Notice withdrawing their

8

Discovery Dispute Report.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C13-00421 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Chelsea Kathleen Dunton

3

Dawna Jeanne Cilluffo

4

Huy Ngoc Tran [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

5
6

Phung Hoang Truong [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

7
8

Tomas Eduardo Margain [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3