Guthmann v. Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership et al
Filing
33
Interim Order re #32 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/7/2017. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017)
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
STACY GUTHMANN,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
Case No.5:16-cv-02680-LHK (HRL)
INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 1
v.
CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 32
Defendants.
17
18
This afternoon, plaintiff filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1, jointly with
19
third-party Santa Clara County Adult Protective Services Program (APS), in which they dispute
20
whether plaintiff should obtain discovery of a report subpoenaed from APS over three months ago.
21
The DDJR, which states that plaintiff wants the disputed document “reasonably before”
22
depositions scheduled to begin on April 18, was filed in apparent disregard of Section 1 of this
23
court’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes (Standing Order). That provision admonishes
24
parties and counsel “not to allow discovery disagreements to drag on unresolved until some
25
important looming deadline forces them into action. Because of the press of its other business, the
26
court may not be able to give the dispute its attention with the same celerity that some or all of the
27
parties think is necessary.”
28
Additionally, the DDJR indicates that the in-person meet-and-confer occurred on March
1
16, 2017. The DDJR therefore should have been filed no later than March 30, 2017. (Standing
2
Order, Section D). It was not filed until over a week later on April 7. Moreover, this court simply
3
cannot accommodate the request that the undersigned convene an immediate in camera review
4
meeting at the courthouse “before April 7, 2017,” given that this DDJR was filed just this
5
afternoon.
Despite these deficiencies,1 this court will review the one-page document DDJR 1
6
7
indicates is the only one at issue. (In view of the stated nature of APS’s objections, this court
8
declines to simply order the document produced now, as plaintiff requests.) County counsel shall
9
promptly submit the document for this court’s in camera review, along with, if County counsel
thinks it’s important for the court to consider, a cover letter explaining (if it is the case) why APS
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
does not believe that production subject to a protective order would be adequate.
This court will endeavor to review the document and issue its decision as promptly as
12
13
possible. But, given that plaintiff filed this DDJR late and at the eleventh hour, and in view of this
14
court’s current trial calendar, the court cannot give absolute assurances that a decision will be
15
rendered before April 18.
SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: April 7, 2017
18
19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
28
Parties and counsel are warned that if there is continued future noncompliance with this court’s
Standing Order, they will be required to appear in person and show cause why they should not be
sanctioned.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?