IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2009
ANGEL CLOKEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
In light of the VDRP session that appears to be scheduled in this action for the same date and time as the hearing on defendants' motion for a protective order, see Dckt. No. 29, that motion, Dckt. Nos. 30, 31, is rescheduled for hearing before this court on October 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. The parties are hereby informed that, notwithstanding the three days specified by Eastern District of California Local Rule ("Local Rule") 37-251, their joint statement re. discovery disagreement shall be filed not later than five court days before the scheduled hearing, or by October 7, 2009, at 12:00 p.m. (noon). In the event the hearing is rescheduled again, the joint statement shall be due at the same time, not later than five court days before the rescheduled hearing.
The joint statement shall comply with the content requirements of Local Rule 37-251 set forth therein. The parties are reminded of the necessity of meeting and conferring in good faith, and attempting to resolve their discovery dispute prior to preparation of their joint statement. For each disputed matter, the joint statement shall provide: (1) the specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party's position; and (4) the opposition. Do not file separate briefing.
Privilege objections must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). Except in extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege log. The failure to properly support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed a waiver of that privilege objection.
The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.