Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03037/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03037-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-03037-RS (LB)

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

San Francisco Division

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF 

JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICES OF 

THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING 

INDUSTRY, UNDERGROUND 

UTILITY/LANDSCAPE LOCAL UNION 

NO. 355, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MANIGLIA LANDSCAPE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03037-RS (LB)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THEY DID NOT MEET 

AND CONFER AND WHY THE

MOTION TO STRIKE DEPOSITION 

ERRATA SHEET SHOULD NOT BE 

GRANTED

Re: ECF No. 185

On April 5, 2019, defendant Northern California District Council of Laborers filed a motion to 

strike plaintiff Miguel Iniguez’s errata sheet to his deposition.1 On April 8, 2019, the court denied 

the District Council’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to meet and confer per the 

procedures set out in the court’s standing order.2 On April 9, 2019, counsel for the District Council 

sent a letter to counsel for the plaintiffs requesting a meet and confer and proposing dates for a 

 

1 Dist. Council Mot. to Strike – ECF No. 178. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Order – ECF No. 183.

Case 3:17-cv-03037-RS Document 188 Filed 05/08/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03037-RS (LB) 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

meeting.3 Counsel for the plaintiffs did not respond.4 On April 25, 2019, counsel for the District 

Council sent a second letter to counsel for the plaintiffs requesting a meet and confer and 

proposing additional dates for a meeting.5 Counsel for the plaintiffs did not respond.6 On May 7, 

2019, the District Council filed a renewed motion to strike Mr. Iniguez’s deposition errata sheet.7

The court hereby orders the plaintiffs to show cause (1) why they did not meet and confer with 

the District Council as the court ordered and (2) why the District Council’s renewed motion to 

strike Mr. Iniguez’s deposition errata sheet should not be granted. The plaintiffs are ordered to file 

a written response of not more than five double-spaced pages by May 13, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3 Lozano-Batista Decl. – ECF No. 186 at 2 (¶ 2); Lozano-Batista Decl. Ex. A – ECF No. 186-1.

4 Lozano-Batista Decl. – ECF No. 186 at 2 (¶ 3).

5

Id. (¶ 4); Lozano-Batista Decl. Ex. A – ECF No. 186-2.

6 Lozano-Batista Decl. – ECF No. 186 at 2 (¶ 5).

7 Dist. Council Renewed Mot. to Strike – ECF No. 185.

Case 3:17-cv-03037-RS Document 188 Filed 05/08/19 Page 2 of 2