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.

Wright v. Gates

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


February 19, 2010

NORVEL R. WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Defendant's motion to compel responses from plaintiff Norvel R. Wright to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff is presently set for hearing before the court on March 4, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 36.) Defendant's basic position is that plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests at issue, and plaintiff's basic position is that he has responded to all discovery requests that he has actually received.

The parties have not prepared the "Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement" required by Local Rule 251(c), and defendant is proceeding under an exception to the requirement of filing a joint statement available "when there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request. . . ." Local Rule 251(e). It does not appear from the parties' submissions on defendant's motion to compel that the parties have attempted to discuss or prepare a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement.

The court hereby ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding the pending discovery dispute and file, no later than February 25, 2010, either: (a) a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement consistent with the requirements of Local Rule 251(c), or (b) a statement summarizing the parties' good faith efforts to meet and confer regarding preparation of the joint statement and the reasons why such good faith efforts were unsuccessful. The parties might find it fruitful to meet and confer via telephone or in-person meeting, as opposed to the exchange of letters.

The hearing presently set for March 4, 2010 will remain on calendar. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100219

© 1992-2010 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.