Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01700/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01700-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

LORRAINE WELLS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01700-SI 

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Defendants have filed a discovery dispute letter with the Court regarding the scheduling of 

plaintiffs’ depositions. Dkt. No. 39. This is the first discovery dispute in this case.

Defendants ask the Court to order plaintiffs to make themselves available for deposition 

before the end of the calendar year or else to extend the discovery cut-off, currently set for April 1, 

2016. Dkt. Nos. 29, 39. Defendants state that “the parties have met and conferred in good faith” 

but have been unable to reach a resolution. Dkt. No. 39 at 1. The discovery dispute letter contains

defendants’ statement but includes no statement from plaintiffs. 

The Court’s standing order requires that parties meet and confer in person to resolve 

discovery disputes, and if no resolution is possible, then to file “a concise joint statement of 5 

pages or less, stating the nature and status of their dispute.” Judge Illston’s Standing Order at 1, 

available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/siorders. 

Defendants’ discovery dispute letter fails to comply with the Court’s standing order for 

two reasons. First, the Court surmises that the parties have not met and conferred in person, given 

that the letter fails to so state and that defendants explain they “provided Plaintiffs’ counsel two 

court days to provide a statement on behalf of Plaintiffs, but he did not respond . . . .” Dkt. No. 39 

at 1. Second, the parties have failed to submit a joint statement. 

Case 3:15-cv-01700-SI Document 41 Filed 11/06/15 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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion, without prejudice to refiling in 

accordance with the Court’s standing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01700-SI Document 41 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2