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)

Download PDF
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?