Lainez v. Salinas City et al

Filing 40

Interim Order on 37 Discovery Dispute Joint Report 2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/17/16. (hrllc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2016)

E-Filed 3/17/16

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALBERTO LAINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

INTERIM ORDER ON DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT 2

v.
CITY OF SALINAS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 37

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-04311-EJD (HRL)

12

Plaintiffs filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) 2. Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiffs assert

13

Monterey County refused to comply with a subpoena and refused to discuss the discovery dispute

14

in person as required by the undersigned’s standing order. Dkt. No. 37 at 1-3.

15

The undersigned’s standing order does, as Plaintiffs assert, require non-parties to meet

16

parties in person in order to discuss discovery disputes. A non-party’s refusal to meet with a party

17

provides a sufficient justification for this court to enter an order that resolves the discovery dispute

18

against the non-party.

19

Plaintiffs, however, did not serve a copy of the DDJR on Monterey County. Dkt. No. 37 at

20

9. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of DDJR 2 and a copy of this order on Monterey County no later

21

than March 21, 2016. Plaintiffs shall also file a proof of service no later than March 21, 2016.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/17/16

24
25
26
27
28

HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge