First Financial Security, Inc. v. Freedom Equity Group, LLC

Filing 52

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 50 request to hold a conference call and compel discovery. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2016)

E-Filed 1/20/16

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01893-HRL

v.
FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
HOLD A CONFERENCE CALL AND
COMPEL DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 50

12

Plaintiff First Financial Security, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a discovery letter in late December

13

that asserts Defendant Freedom Equity Group, LLC (“Defendant”) has violated the undersigned’s

14

standing order regarding civil discovery disputes by refusing to attempt to resolve outstanding

15

discovery disputes. Dkt. No. 50 at 2. Plaintiff asserts: (1) Defendant’s counsel underwent

16

surgery; (2) the surgery delayed Defendant’s participation in the resolution of outstanding

17

discovery disputes; and (3) the dispute-resolution process picked up again in early December, but

18

then Defendant’s counsel altogether stopped responding to emails. Plaintiff therefore requests that

19

the court hold a conference call with the parties in order to compel the production of discovery

20

materials that Plaintiff has requested but not yet received.

21

Defendant’s counsel responds: (1) he recovered more slowly than expected from his

22

surgery; (2) he was debilitated by pneumonia for about one week, in early December, shortly after

23

he had recovered from the surgery; (3) his time was subsequently occupied by the holiday season

24

and by a pre-planned, pre-paid vacation with his family; (4) he promptly, while still on vacation,

25

responded to Plaintiff’s discovery letter by calling one of Plaintiff’s lawyers in order to make

26

plans for how they would discuss and resolve the outstanding discovery disputes; and (5)

27

Defendant’s counsel believes the parties can and will resolve the outstanding discovery disputes in

28

the near future without judicial intervention.

1

The undersigned is presently satisfied that Defendant’s counsel has complied with the

2

undersigned’s standing order and that judicial intervention is unnecessary at this time. The court

3

therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for the court to hold a teleconference and compel the

4

production of discovery materials. Plaintiff may, however, seek future judicial intervention if the

5

problems described in Plaintiff’s discovery letter persist.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/20/16

8
9
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2