Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01729/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01729-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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 Pursuant to this court’s Civil Local Rule 26-2, the deadline for filing discovery motions 1

is not until 7 days after the discovery cut-off. Because no discovery cut-off has yet been set, there

is not yet any deadline for filing discovery motions and these motions are thus timely.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LI DONG MA ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RSM MCGLADREY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-1729 JF (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL, AND

CONTINUING HEARING

(Re: Docket Nos. 49 & 52)

On March 30, 2010, Plaintiff timely filed both a Motion to Compel Further Responses to 1

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, and a Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to

Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Documents. Defendants opposed both motions. Having reviewed

the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based

on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than May 18, 2010, the parties shall meet and

confer either in person or by telephone regarding each discovery request in dispute. See, CIV.L.R.

1-5(n) & 37-1(a). From the papers submitted, it appears the parties did not engage in an adequate

meet and confer session. Plaintiff is entitled to obtain information and documents that fall within the

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 76 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 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

Local Rule 1-5(n) provides, 2

“‘Meet and confer’ or ‘confer’ means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith

the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order. Unless these Local Rules

otherwise provide or a Judge otherwise orders, such communication may take place by

telephone. The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication,

however, does not satisfy a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to ‘confer.’ Rather, this

requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face

to face meeting or in a telephone conversation.”

ORDER, page 2

broad scope of discovery, so long as it is not privileged and does not impose an undue burden on

Defendants. With this standard in mind, there appear to be numerous points that could and should

be resolved through a proper meet and confer in compliance with this court’s local rules, before the 2

parties present to the court any disputes they cannot resolve on their own.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than May 25, 2010, the parties shall submit a joint

supplemental brief setting forth each discovery request that remains in dispute followed first by

Plaintiff’s position and then by Defendants’ position.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may not refuse to produce contact information

for its current and former employees who may have discoverable knowledge based on their right to

privacy. See Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (2007). While the

main issue in the Pioneer case was whether the named Plaintiffs could contact potential class

members, its reasoning makes clear that discovery of contact information for a company’s customers

who are percipient witnesses does not violate the customers’ privacy rights. Similarly here,

discovery of contact information for employees who may have discoverable knowledge does not

violate their right to privacy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on both motions is CONTINUED to June 8,

2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Dated: 4/30/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 76 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2