Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04343/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04343-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORTGAGE ACADEMY LLC,

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-4343 PVT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL

On January 17, 2007, Plaintiff First Franklin Financial Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a

motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands and request for sanctions. 

Local Rule 37-2 provides: 

In addition to complying with applicable provisions of Civil L.R. 7, a motion to

compel further responses to discovery requests must set forth each request in full,

followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. For each such

request, the moving papers must detail the basis for the party’s contention that it

is entitled to the requested discovery and must show how the proportionality and

other requirements of FRCivP 26(b)(2) are satisfied. 

Civ. L.R. 37-2. Plaintiff did not set forth the discovery sought and did not explain why the

discovery sought was warranted under Rule 26. Thus, the court is unable to grant the motion to

compel. 

Case 5:06-cv-04343-PVT Document 38 Filed 02/09/07 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

ORDER, page 2

Additionally, Local Rule 37-1 provides: “The Court will not entertain a request or a

motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to FRCivP 37, counsel have

previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.” Civ. L.R. 37-

1(a). Plaintiff asserts that it granted three extensions of time for Defendant to respond to the

discovery and that it warned Defendant that no further extensions would be granted. As of the

date of the motion, Defendant had produced no responses to the discovery requests. While the

Court approves of the courtesy and patience that Plaintiff has shown, granting extensions does

not comply with the directive of Rule 37. Plaintiff did not attempt to resolve any disputes over

the discovery and did not warn Defendant that failure to produce the discovery would result in a

motion to compel.

Finally, Local Rule 7-8 provides “Any motion for sanctions, regardless of the sources of

authority invoked, must comply with the following: a) The motion must be separately filed and

the date for hearing must be set in conformance with Civil L.R. 7-2.” Civ. L.R. 7-8. Plaintiff

requested sanctions in the same motion as the motion to compel. 

Because of the procedural defects described above, It Is Hereby Ordered that the motion

to compel is denied without prejudice. If, after completing a proper meet and confer, Plaintiff

still seeks the discovery in question, it may file a new motion to compel and a separate motion

for sanctions. Moreover, Defendant is cautioned that it should not interpret this Order in any

way that condones the alleged failure to comply with discovery obligations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04343-PVT Document 38 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2