Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04315/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

MELISSA CONKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04315-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE; CONTINUING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 20, 22

Defendant has filed a request and a motion to appear by telephone at the initial Case 

Management Conference (“CMC”) set for December 21, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) The basis for 

the motion is essentially one of convenience and the view that the underlying action does not 

warrant a personal appearance. (Id. at 1.) As this Court has advised through its standing order: 

These conferences are intended to be substantive and productive.

Accordingly, each party shall be represented at case management 

conferences by counsel with authority to enter into stipulations and 

make admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) and (c), as well as 

fully prepared to address all of the matters in the CAND CMC Order 

and Civil L.R. 16-10(b). Failure to do so shall be considered 

grounds for sanctions. Because of the substantive quality of the

initial case management conference, telephonic appearances are 

disfavored. The Court will grant requests to appear by telephone 

only upon a compelling showing of good cause. The routine

inconveniences of travel do not constitute good cause.

Standing Order in Civil Cases § 6. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. 

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this action and hereby CONTINUES

the Case Management Conference to January 11, 2016 so that the parties can determine whether 

consent to a magistrate judge of their choice and for all purposes is warranted. The Northern 

District’s use of magistrate judges for all purposes has been hailed as the model for the United 

States. 

In this regard, counsel shall personally review each magistrate judge’s profile and discuss 

Case 4:15-cv-04315-DMR Document 24 Filed 12/09/15 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

the option with both opposing counsel and their clients. Profiles of each magistrate judge and 

their respective locations can be found at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. The Court 

hereby SETS a compliance hearing on January 15, 2016 at 9:01 a.m. in the Federal Courthouse, 

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. Counsel shall confirm compliance as 

follows: by January 6, 2016, the parties shall file either (1) a joint stipulation to a magistrate 

judge for all purposes, or (2) a joint statement verifying counsel have personally reviewed each 

magistrate judge’s profile and have discussed the options as directed but have been unable to reach 

consensus. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear and the compliance hearing will 

be taken off calendar. Failure to file the required joint filing may result in sanctions. If the parties 

have not stipulated to a magistrate judge, the CMC will proceed before the undersigned as 

scheduled herein. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 20, 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

December 9, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-04315-DMR Document 24 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2