Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Melanie anderson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 9, 2012
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
MELANIE ANDERSON, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A COTTAGE CREEK APPRAISALS, DEFENDANT.
On November 7, 2012, the court heard defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to provide responses to defendant's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Seven and Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and defendant's request that the court clarify the scope of discovery with respect to communications between Ignacio Gomez and plaintiff's counsel. Dckt. No. 84. Attorney Susan Condon appeared on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Jason Yang appeared on behalf of defendant.
As stated on the record, defendant did not adequately meet and confer
regarding the discovery dispute, as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule
251(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (providing that a motion to
compel discovery "must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted
to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or
discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action"); E.D. Cal.
L.R. 251(b) (providing that a discovery motion will not be heard
unless "the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their
differences"). The parties' joint statement and the hearing on the
motion revealed that the only remaining disputes involve defendant's
Request for Production of Documents No. 94 and Special Interrogatory
No. 20, both of which seek communications between Ignacio Gomez and
attorneys for plaintiff with respect to this case, as well as
defendant's request that the court clarify the scope of discovery with
respect to those communications. The joint statement and hearing also
revealed, however, that during the meet and confer process,
plaintiff's counsel offered to allow Gomez to testify at his
deposition "regarding communications between counsel and himself that
he 'considered -that is generated, saw, read, reviewed, and/or
reflected upon - in connection with' his rebuttal expert testimony in
this case," but defendant cancelled that deposition and instead filed
the present motion to compel. Defendant has not adequately
demonstrated why plaintiff's counsel's offer was not accepted and/or
why the parties were unable to either resolve the dispute or work
toward resolving the dispute without court intervention.*fn1
Therefore, in light of the failure to adequately meet and
confer, defendant's motion to compel, Dckt. No. 84, is denied without
prejudice. If defendant re-notices the deposition of Ignacio Gomez,
the court expects that plaintiff will once again offer to allow Gomez
to testify at his deposition "regarding communications between counsel
and himself that he 'considered - that is generated, saw, read,
reviewed, and/or reflected upon - in connection with' his rebuttal
expert testimony in this case."
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Buy This Entire Record For