Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE ROMANECK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT, ET

AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-2473 TEH (JL)

ORDER

The Court received a two-page facsimile transmission from Plaintiff’s counsel

describing the parties’ difficulties scheduling depositions. Counsel recounts conversations,

telephone messages, and numerous e-mail exchanges. In the final paragraph, counsel

“requests to proceed with the depositions of Winnick and Spiller as noticed for February 16

and 17, 2006 and has already agreed to produce Romaneck for deposition on March 2 or

11, 2006. Romaneck also offered to be available for deposition on Saturday if that worked

better with Mr. Johnsrud’s schedule.” (February 8, 2006 letter at page 2)

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Thelton E.

Henderson) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The discovery cutoff for fact discovery and the date by which all depositions should be concluded is May 29,

2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 33 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

C-05-2473 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 2

This Court, in its Standing Order, provides guidance for parties in its methods for

resolving discovery disputes:

“In disputes which arise after the case has been referred, but before a motion

has been filed before the district judge, the parties shall follow the following procedure:

Parties shall meet and confer in person, or, if counsel are located outside the Bay Area, by

telephone, to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters,

telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and

confer. If, after a good faith effort, the parties have not resolved their dispute, they shall

prepare a concise joint statement of 5 pages or less without affidavits or exhibits, stating

the nature and status of their dispute. If a joint statement is not possible, each side may

submit a brief individual statement of 2 pages or less. The Court will advise the parties

regarding the need, if any, for formal briefing or a hearing.”

(Standing Order, paragraph 7)

All counsel in this case are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, they

shall all meet and confer in person within ten days of the e-filing of this order, to arrive at

deposition dates for Romaneck, Winnick and Spiller. Counsel shall prepare and e-file a joint

report of no more than five pages to the Court within two days of the conclusion of their

meeting, advising of the outcome. If counsel cannot arrive at a joint report, then each party

may prepare a report of no more than one page.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2006

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 33 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2