Guthmann v. Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership et al

Filing 47

INTERIM ORDER re 44 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 3. Parties' supplement due by 4:00 PM, 5/30/2017. Hearing set for 5/31/2017, 1:30 PM. Lead counsel must appear in person. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/24/2017. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017)

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. 3 v. CC-PALO ALTO, INC. D/B/A VI AT PALO ALTO, et al. Re: Dkt. No. 44 Defendants. 17 18 In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #3, plaintiff seeks an order from the court 19 compelling further responses to 59 Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) and rulings 20 on defendants’ objections thereto. (This is on top of the order plaintiff wants in DDJR #2 21 concerning a different set of RFPs, only coincidently also 59 in number, that were insufficiently 22 responded to by defendants.) 23 The parties acknowledge that DDJR #3 was hastily prepared in order to get it filed before 24 expiration of the court’s deadline for submitting discovery disputes. Contrary to the court’s 25 standing order, lead counsel did not meet and confer in person to attempt to work out their 26 discovery disagreements. Even so, the parties report that counsel (perhaps lead counsel, perhaps 27 not) continue to confer by telephone and intimate that progress is being made. Defendants report 28 they continue to search for and produce responsive documents. The court concludes that this discovery dispute is not yet ripe for decision, and that the 1 2 parties must continue their efforts to come to agreement. The parties shall no later than 4:00 PM 3 on May 30, 2017 file a Supplement to DDJR #3 describing any remaining unresolved issues.1 If 4 any, then the court will hear the matter on May 31, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Lead counsel must appear in 5 person. The court will hear argument on the unresolved issues and make an appropriate order. For the possible guidance of the parties in their continued meet and confer efforts, the court 6 7 notes that, at least at first blush, the propounding of 238 RFPs looks like overkill. And, the 8 temporal scope and breadth of some of the RFPs could, perhaps, reasonably be cut back. 9 Although the plaintiff may be able to explain it, some areas of inquiry seem very far afield from 10 what’s relevant. The privacy “privilege,” of course, is not absolute. SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: May 24, 2017 13 14 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Furthermore, plaintiff shall lodge with chambers a new copy of Exhibit A which numbers the 157 pages consecutively and tabs its 3 sub-exhibits. 2 1 5:16-cv-02680-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Erica Christina Gonzalez 3 Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones 4 Jennifer Nicole Lutz 5 Kendra Lin Orr 6,, Paul Joseph Smoot, 7 Peter Collins McMahon, 8 9 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 3

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?