Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03422/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03422-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, No. C-07-03422 EDL

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNITED AIR LINES,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

This action arises from an October 7, 2003 ground collision between two airplanes. All Nippon

Airways (“ANA”) alleges that United Airline’s (“UAL”) negligence caused the collision. UAL filed

an amended counter-complaint on October 26, 2007, which alleges negligence against ANA. It also

alleges breach of contract of a Standard Ground Handling Agreement between ANA and UAL. UAL

now moves to compel ANA to produce certain documents responsive to its request to produce

documents and notices of taking video depositions. It also requests additional time to compete the

depositions of ANA pilots Yusuke Nishiguchi, Eishin Yamaguchi, and Teruo Usui, as well as costs and

fees.

It is hereby ORDERED that UAL’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. UAL may

re-file its motion after its counsel meets and confers with ANA’s counsel about the issues in UAL’s

motion. Counsel shall meet and confer through good faith, detailed, face-to-face or telephonic

conversations about the issues raised in the motion. If the parties have unresolved issues after doing so,

the Court will resolve those issues. The Court will entertain a request to shorten time on such a motion.

Case 3:07-cv-03422-EDL Document 49 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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

In this District, the local rules are very specific about meet and confer requirements. “Meet and

confer” or “confer” means “to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issue(s) required

under the particular Rule or order. . . . The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail

communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to ‘confer.’ Rather,

this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face to face

meeting or in a telephone conversation.” Civil L.R. 1-5(n).

UAL’s counsel, Scott Torpey, has stated, under oath, that “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 37(a)(1),

. . . on December 21, 2007, [he] called ANA’s counsel in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

action. Additionally [he] previously informed ANA’s counsel at the recent depositions of ANA’s flight

crew that [he] would be filing a motion to compel.’” Torpey Decl. ¶ 1. 

While ANA does not specifically deny that counsel conferred in a meaningful, good faith manner

about these issues, it is not clear from the declaration whether such activities occurred. In addition,

UAL filed its motion to compel on December 21, 2007, the same day Mr. Torpey attempted to contact

ANA’s counsel once again to discuss the issues. Furthermore, when UAL filed its last motion to

compel, the parties appeared to “meet and confer” via their written briefs and were able to resolve their

issues after the motion was fully briefed, but prior to the hearing. This suggests that if counsel conferred

more thoroughly at the outset, they may have been able to resolve some of those issues amongst

themselves, as encouraged by the discovery rules. This is particularly true here, where it appears that

at least some of the issues might be resolved without Court intervention.

In addition, at the November 13, 2007 hearing, the Court ordered numerous revisions to the

protective order. On November 19, 2007, the Court ordered UAL to make those changes, and then

ordered the parties to submit the jointly proposed order to the Court. This has not yet occurred.

Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that UAL shall make those changes and provide a copy to

ANA within a week, and that the parties shall submit the protective order to the Court within two weeks.

///

///

///

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-03422-EDL Document 49 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

As for categories of documents that ANA maintains it has produced in their entirety, ANA shall

provide UAL with a declaration that it has produced all responsive documents to any given request, if

it has not already done so. ANA shall do this within a week.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03422-EDL Document 49 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 3