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.

James Garcia v. City of Sacramento

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


November 10, 2011

JAMES GARCIA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Presently before the court are two motions to compel filed by plaintiff, which concern discovery requests served on defendants City of Sacramento ("City") and Gary L. Dahl (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25).*fn1 The undersigned heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on November 10, 2011. (Minutes, Nov. 10, 2011, Dkt. No. 28.) Attorneys Stewart Katz and Guy Danilowitz appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Sheri M. Chapman appeared on behalf of the City and Dahl.

The court does not resolve the two pending motions to compel at this time. As stated on the record at the hearing, the record does not support that the parties have adequately met and conferred in good faith in an effort to narrow the issues that must be resolved by the court. Additionally, because of the manner in which the preparation of the joint statement re discovery disagreement was conducted, the issues to be resolved by the court have not been clearly or adequately presented.

In light of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the pending discovery disputes.

2. No later than November 17, 2011, the City and Dahl shall serve an adequate privilege log on plaintiff.*fn2

3. A subsequent hearing on plaintiff's motions to compel will be held on December 1, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. The motions to compel will be heard with defendants' recently filed motion for protective order (Dkt. No. 27). The joint statement re discovery dispute shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 251.

4. If the parties agree that they require additional time to meet and confer in good faith or to prepare the joint statement re discovery dispute, they may file a stipulation and proposed order continuing the December 1, 2011 hearing on all three motions to an agreed upon date.*fn3

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.