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.

Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 31, 2013

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

On September 11, 2013, defendant Steadfast Insurance Company ("Steadfast") filed a "Motion For Relief From Presumptive Discovery Limits For Depositions, " along with a supporting attorney declaration and memorandum of points and authorities.[1] (ECF Nos. 43-45.) On September 19, 2013, the undersigned approved the parties' stipulation continuing the hearing date for Steadfast's pending motion and resetting the matter to be heard on the stipulated date of November 21, 2013. (ECF No. 50.)

Steadfast's pending motion indicates that the parties have thus far been unable to stipulate to conducting depositions beyond the presumptive discovery limit of ten depositions per party and seven hours per deposition. Accordingly, Eastern District Local Rule 251(b)-(c) requires that the parties to this discovery dispute meet and confer to attempt to resolve it, and if no resolution occurs, the parties are to work together to prepare a Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(b)-(c). The Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement must be filed on or before November 14, 2013.

The hearing date of November 21, 2013, is still several weeks away. The parties have ample time to continue to meet and confer about their dispute and to work together to craft the requisite Joint Statement.

Given the Joint Statement requirement, the undersigned will not consider Steadfast's memorandum of points and authorities and attorney declaration filed on September 11, 2013 (ECF Nos. 43-45); Steadfast shall include its legal arguments and any supporting declarations as part of the Joint Statement to be filed pursuant to this order and Local Rule 251(c). Likewise, the other parties to this case shall include their opposing legal arguments and supporting declarations as part of that same Joint Statement.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties are to continue to meet and confer in good faith in efforts to resolve the pending discovery disagreement.
2. The parties are to file, no later than November 14, 2013, either:
a. A Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement consistent with the requirements of Local Rule 251(c), or
b. A statement listing the parties' good faith efforts to meet and confer (including efforts to meet and confer specifically regarding preparing the Joint Statement), the dates and times of such efforts, and the reasons why such good faith efforts were unsuccessful. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(d).
3. The hearing presently set for November 21, 2013, will remain on calendar. However, a failure to comply with this order and/or the court's local rules may result in the hearing being dropped from calendar, or an entry of an order adverse to the party failing to comply. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(d).
4. Given the Joint Statement requirement, the undersigned will not consider Steadfast's memorandum of points and authorities and attorney declaration filed with the notice of motion on September 11, 2013; Steadfast shall include its legal arguments and any supporting declarations as part of the Joint Statement to be filed pursuant to this order and Local Rule 251(c).

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.