Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02745-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Counsel for both parties were familiar with this Court’s Standing Orders from

hearings on two previous discovery disputes during which the Court reiterated its procedural

requirements.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUNIOR WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DALY CITY POLICE OFFICERS 

C. AUSTRIA and M. PRICE,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02745 JSW

ORDER RE OUTSTANDING

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The Court, having received Plaintiff’s self-styled motion for discovery on December 21,

2005, served an order to show cause on the same day requiring Plaintiff to comply with this

Court’s Standing Orders. The order to show cause explicitly set out this Court’s requirement

that in order to address a discovery dispute, the parties were required to file a joint letter not to

exceed four pages. The letter was due to be filed no later than December 30, 2005. The order

to show cause also required Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why the Court should not sanction

him in the amount of $500 for failure to comply with this Court’s Standing Orders.1

Although on December 22, 2005, the Court received Plaintiff’s counsel’s response to the

order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned, the response once again set out Plaintiff’s

position on the dispute, but without input from opposing counsel and without any indication

that counsel had met and conferred in person to resolve the dispute.

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 92 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Having still not received a joint letter detailing the parties’ positions regarding the

outstanding discovery dispute, on January 10, 2006, this Court’s deputy clerk initiated a call to

counsel to remind them to submit a joint letter. On January 12, 2006, the Court received

separate letters from counsel indicating the parties were unable to meet and confer, in person or

otherwise, and setting out the parties’ separate positions on the matter. 

Although counsel have yet to follow this Court’s explicit orders setting out the

procedures for resolution of discovery disputes, the Court finds the current dispute both latefiled and seeking information not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery request is HEREBY DENIED. Although the Court

finds the conduct by Plaintiff’s counsel to have violated its Standing Orders and its order to

show cause dated December 21, 2005, the Court will not levy monetary sanctions at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02745-JSW Document 92 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2