Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03011/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

DOLORES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03011-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING THE COURT'S 

MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 28-30

The Court has reviewed the letters submitted by the parties regarding their meet and confer 

efforts. Upon review of the letters, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a conference call to 

enforce the meet and confer requirement, because any such request is premature. Pursuant to 

Paragraph 12 of the undersigned’s standing order “[a]fter attempting other means to confer on the 

issue(s) (i.e. letter, phone call, e-mail), any party may demand such a[n in person or telephonic]

meeting on ten (10) business days’ notice.” It is apparent from the correspondence provided that 

Plaintiff demanded a formal meeting before clearly identifying the perceived deficiencies in 

Defendant’s responses to the requests for production of documents. Also, it does not appear that 

defense counsel is refusing to meet and confer.

The Court notes that if Request No. 2 is at the heart of this discovery dispute, even without 

the benefit of Defendant’s response, the request, as propounded, is overbroad. Further, under Rule 

26, the parties have an ongoing obligation to supplement their discovery responses when they 

learn new information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Thus, Defendant need only identify or produce 

those responsive documents of which it is currently aware. 

The parties shall meaningfully meet and confer regarding the dispute, if any, and if they 

are unable to resolve any remaining dispute(s) without court intervention, they shall file a joint 

Case 4:15-cv-03011-KAW Document 31 Filed 11/20/15 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 that complies with the court’s standing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03011-KAW Document 31 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 2