Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

1

 The Declaration states only that a meet and confer session was held regarding defendant's initial discovery

responses. See Declaration of Paul Arons at ¶ 1.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 6/24/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANNE PALMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 I.C. SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:04-cv-3237 RMW (RS)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF'S

COUNSEL TO ADDRESS MEET

AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS

Plaintiff Susanne Palmer ("Palmer") moves to compel further discovery from defendant I.C. System,

Inc., and, accordingly, noticed a motion for hearing on July 13, 2005. The declaration filed by Palmer's

counsel, however, fails to state that the parties met and conferred regarding defendant's amended discovery

responses, which are the subject of the motion to compel, in compliance with Civil L.R. 37-1(a).1 In

contrast, defense counsel's declaration indicates that there was no meet and confer session prior to the filing

of Palmer's motion. See Declaration of Andrew Steinheimer at ¶ 2. Based on the "meet and confer"

requirement set forth in L.R. 37-1, plaintiff's counsel shall file a declaration, on or before June 29, 2005,

clearly stating whether or not he conferred with defense counsel regarding the amended discovery

responses prior to filing the motion to compel. In the event that no meet and confer session occurred, the

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 74 Filed 06/24/05 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

hearing on Palmer's motion to compel shall be vacated and the parties are ordered to meet and confer

regarding defendant's amended discovery responses. If that meeting is unsuccessful, Palmer may re-notice

her motion to compel in compliance with Civil L.R. 37-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/24/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 74 Filed 06/24/05 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com 

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com, shannon@horwitzlaw.com 

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com, mellis@mpbf.com;fwilson@mpbf.com 

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com, restrella@mpbf.com;npruitt@mpbf.com 

Andrew Steinheimer asteinheimer@mpbf.com,

lmiller@mpbf.com;mellis@mpbf.com;vaxeman@mpbf.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

Dated: 6/24/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 74 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 of 3