Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04186/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04186-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

GARY FARRIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

3M COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04186-JST (RMI)

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 241

Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 239) and a

separate letter brief from Defendant Toshiba American Business Solutions (“TABS”) (dkt. 241) 

requesting the court to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions as noncompliant with a previous 

order of the court.

On December 20, 2019, as it pertained to a number of discovery issues between Plaintiff 

and TABS, the court ordered (dkt. 237) the parties to meet and confer in person in a good faith 

effort to resolve or narrow the disputes, and that if any disputed remained, the Parties were ordered 

to file a joint letter brief not exceeding 10 pages within fourteen days. Seven days later, on 

December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pertaining to those discovery disputes. 

See Pl.’s Mot. (dkt. 239). A few days later, on January 3, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a 

separate declaration relating his prior inability to comply with the court’s order due to vacation 

plans, while also noting his return to California the following week, thus becoming available again

to meet and confer. See Decl. (dkt. 240) at 4 (“. . . I’ll go to San Francisco if I have to.”).

Thereafter, TABS submitted a separate letter brief (dkt. 241) requesting that Plaintiff’s motion be 

stricken and that the Parties be made to meet and confer in person and then to file a joint discovery 

Case 4:18-cv-04186-JST Document 242 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

letter brief as previously ordered. Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. 241) is noncompliant with the court’s previous order in that it is not a jointly-filed letter brief and was not

preceded by meeting and conferring in person, the motion is STRICKEN. 

Counsel for Plaintiff and TABS are herewith ORDERED to meet and confer in person, in 

San Francisco, in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the matters at issue. Thereafter, if any 

issues remain in dispute, Plaintiff and TABS are ORDERED to present those issues in a jointlyfiled letter brief not exceeding 10 pages on or before Tuesday, January 14, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-04186-JST Document 242 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 2