Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03038/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03038-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

KAMLESH BANGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES 

LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03038-WHO 

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO

MEET AND CONFER REGARDING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 64

On September 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel defendant to provide 

further responses to plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories. Dkt. No. 57. On October 7, 2015, 

defendant responded with its own motion, this one seeking to compel plaintiff to respond to 

defendant’s first set of interrogatories, first set of requests for production of documents, and first 

set of requests for admission. Dkt. No. 64. The parties set their respective motions to compel for

hearing on November 11, 2015 and November 12, 2015, neither of which is a date on which I am 

hearing civil motions. See Standing Order for Civil Cases § 3 (“Scheduling”).

1

 Not to mention 

that I do not hear discovery motions until after the parties have filed a joint letter describing their 

dispute. See Standing Order for Civil Cases § 4 (“Discovery Disputes”).

The parties appear unable either to communicate effectively with one another or to comply 

with the rules regarding discovery disputes stated in my Standing Order for Civil Cases.2 Id. This 

is unacceptable. 

 

1 Available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders.

2

I recognize the efforts plaintiff has made to comply with the Standing Order. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 

62 at 3. Nevertheless, the proper course under the Standing Order would have been to submit “a 

brief individual statement of two pages or less” including a description of the discovery dispute, a 

“certification of compliance with the meet and confer requirement,” and “an explanation of why a 

joint statement was not possible.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 4.

Case 3:14-cv-03038-WHO Document 65 Filed 10/13/15 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

Within ten days of the date of this Order, the parties shall hold an in-person, face-toface meet and confer regarding their motions to compel and any other outstanding discovery 

issues. If the parties are unable to agree on a time and place for the meet and confer, they shall 

hold it at 9:00 a.m. on October 20, 2015 in the attorney lounge on the 18th Floor of the Phillip 

Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. Within five days 

of the date of the meet and confer, the parties shall submit a joint letter pursuant to my Standing 

Order either stating that their dispute is resolved or describing any points of disagreement that 

remain. The meet and confer shall last a minimum of two hours or until each issue is resolved or 

defined clearly enough that a useful joint letter can be presented to the Court.

The briefing schedules and hearings on the parties’ respective motions to compel are 

VACATED. After receiving the parties’ joint letter, I will decide whether further briefing or a 

hearing is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03038-WHO Document 65 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 2