Ralph B. Neal v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 50

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 47 Motion to Compel. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

E-filed 7/18/2017

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RALPH B. NEAL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
et al.,

Case No.16-cv-04923-EJD (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 47

Defendants.

12
13

Pro se plaintiff Ralph Neal (“Plaintiff”) requests that the court compel Defendant U.S.

14

Bank N.A. (“Defendant”) to respond to interrogatories served upon it in November 2016. Plaintiff

15

asserts that the Rule 26(f) conference has occurred, that discovery is open, and that Defendant’s

16

responses are overdue. Dkt. No. 47. Defendant responds that the parties have not participated in a

17

Rule 26(f) conference and requests that the court deny Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. No. 48.

18

In arguing that the Rule 26(f) conference has occurred, Plaintiff points to the parties’

19

separate Case Management Conference (“CMC”) Statements and references e-mailed “meet and

20

confer communications” leading up to the CMC originally set for April 6, 2017. Dkt. No. 47.

21

Plaintiff’s CMC Statement asserts that the parties had not yet exchanged initial disclosures and

22

mentions the interrogatories at issue in this motion, but does not discuss a discovery plan. Id., Ex.

23

A. The court vacated the CMC set for April 6 on March 31, 2017. Dkt. No. 40.

24

Absent a stipulation or order to the contrary, discovery is not permitted before the parties

25

participate in a Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Rule 26(f) requires parties to

26

confer at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1).

27
28

The court is not persuaded that the Rule 26(f) conference has occurred. There is no
indication that the communications referenced by Plaintiff constituted a Rule 26(f) conference.

1

For example, it does not appear that the parties arranged for initial disclosures or developed a

2

discovery plan. As such, discovery is premature and the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

3

Plaintiff is further advised that the present motion does not comply with the undersigned’s

4

Standing Order Re: Civil Discovery Disputes.1 The Standing Order prohibits the filing of noticed

5

discovery motions and instead requires the parties to file discovery dispute joint reports.

6

Additionally, the Standing Order describes the meet-and-confer efforts that are required before the

7

parties seek judicial intervention. The undersigned will not consider future discovery disputes that

8

do not comply with the Standing Order.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: 7/18/2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Standing Order is available on the court’s website: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hrlorders.
2