Vela et al v. County Of Monterey et al

Filing 72

INTERIM ORDER re 71 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. Supplemental report due by 6/9/2017. If any remaining unresolved issues, lead counsel and anyone else whose presence is needed to fully explore resolution shall appear in person before this court on 6/14/2017, 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/1/2017. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ESTATE OF SANDRA VELA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No.5:16-cv-02375-BLF (HRL)
INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 71

Defendants.
This is a suit for damages arising out of the suicide of Sandra Vela while incarcerated in
the Monterey County jail.
In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (“DDJR”), the plaintiffs complain that the County of

20

Monterey defendants (“defendants” or “County”) have been dragging their feet on producing

21

documents responsive to Requests for Production (“RFPs”) propounded to them in late December

22

2016, over five months ago. They also say they have not received the Electronically Stored

23

Information (ESI) responsive to the list of search terms and named custodians they furnished to

24

defendants in late January 2017.

25

Defendants say they are working on producing, but it is not clear that defendants agree

26

with what plaintiffs say defendants agreed to turn over. Some things defendants objected to as

27

either irrelevant or overbroad (or both). Defendants also say that producing ESI is hard because

28

they switched to a different e-mail platform, and it could take months to get the information. (The

1

court notes that fact discovery closes on August 29, 2017, and defendant’s projected time table to

2

ESI production is not workable unless the presiding judge extends the discovery deadline.) The

3

defendants deny foot-dragging.

4

Plaintiffs enclose with DDJR #1 their RFPs, but not the defendants’ responses. They also

5

allude to certain agreements allegedly made in e-mails, but the court does not have the e-mails,

6

and defendants seem to disagree. Except in the most general way, the court does not know exactly

7

which RFPs are in dispute or who agreed to what.

8

Despite the requirements of this court’s Standing Order Re: Civil Discovery Disputes

9

(“Standing Order”), there have been no face-to-face meetings between counsel to address the
discovery dispute. In fact, it appears there has been an exchange of e-mails and one, maybe two,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

telephone calls, and that’s it. That is not enough.

12

The court concludes that this discovery dispute is not yet ripe for decision. The parties are

13

ordered to meet and confer, as long and as often as is necessary, to thoroughly explore each area of

14

dispute and make a concerted effort to reach agreement.

15

Then, by 10:00 AM on June 9, 2017, the parties will file a Supplemental DDJR #1

16

advising whether or not they have resolved their dispute entirely. If they have, that ends the

17

matter. If they have not, they shall list any remaining issue or RFP in dispute and succinctly state

18

their positions on each.

19

If their Supplemental DDJR #1 lists unresolved issues, then at 10:00 AM on June 14, 2017

20

lead counsel Dan Stormer for plaintiffs and Michael R. Philippi for defendants, each accompanied

21

by anyone else whose presence is needed to fully explore resolution, shall appear before this court

22

IN PERSON and comply with paragraph 2.C. of the Standing Order. If they do not resolve it, the

23

court will hear argument and issue an appropriate order.

24
25

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2017

26
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2

1

5:16-cv-02375-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Alan Louis Martini

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Dan Lewis Stormer [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

4
5

Joshua Piovia-Scott

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Lori Rifkin

7

Marc G. Cowden

8

Michael Rudolph Philippi [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

9

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mohammad K Tajsar

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Rachel Rose Ostrander [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

12
13

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Vincent P. Hurley [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3