Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cartwright v. Viking Industries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 29, 2008

LYNDA CARTWRIGHT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
VIKING INDUSTRIES, INC., DEFENDANT.

Defendants filed a motion for protective order on August 26, 2008, and set the matter for hearing on September 17, 2008. The motion addresses one of the discovery matters scheduled for hearing on September 10, 2008 (plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, Set One), pursuant to which the parties have been directed to file a joint stipulation on or before September 3, 2008. The matters will be consolidated for hearing on September 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in deference to the September 26, 2008 deadline for pre-certification discovery in this action.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the notification and briefing requirements specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251, the joint statement concerning defendant's motion for protective order filed August 26, 2008 shall be consolidated with the joint statement responsive to plaintiffs' amended motion to compel filed August 13, 2008, and the consolidated joint statement shall be filed no later than Thursday, September 4, 2008, by noon. The briefing order filed August 18, 2008, requiring that the joint statement be filed by September 3, 2008, is no longer pertinent.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached, if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party's position; and (4) the opposition. E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to waive it.

Plaintiffs, the initial moving parties, are responsible for filing the joint statement. Defendant must nevertheless timely draft and submit its portions. Failure of either party to use best efforts to ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions.

20080829

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.