Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05105/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05105-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FLUOR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-05105-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE OVER FLUOR'S

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 269

The parties have filed a joint statement regarding a discovery dispute over Fluor’s 

interrogatory responses. Dkt. No. 269. The Shiloh Group contends that Fluor’s interrogatory 

responses are deficient. Fluor apparently agrees as it has agreed to serve supplemental and 

amended responses by September 1, 2015. Id. at 6. Accordingly, the joint statement is premature.

I remind counsel that parties are required to meet and confer prior to submitting joint discovery 

statements and may only file a discovery statement if they are unable to resolve their dispute. See

Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.

1

 If The Shiloh Group believes that Fluor’s 

amended and supplemental responses remain deficient, and the parties are unable resolve their 

dispute through the meet and confer process, the parties may file a joint statement of their dispute 

at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

 

1

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/whoorder

Case 3:10-cv-05105-WHO Document 270 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 1