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)

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

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

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Paul Joseph Smoot

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Peter Collins McMahon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

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