Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00492/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00492-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT

AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0492 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE MEET AND CONFER FOR

EIGHT DISCOVERY MOTIONS

This Court has twice issued orders instructing the parties to meet and confer because of

inadequate efforts to meet and confer. In spite of the Court’s prior orders, it is confronted once

again with the same situation, and this time with respect to eight different discovery motions. Most

of the meet and confers took place by letter writing, which is in direct violation of the Court’s

standing order on discovery, and, where meet and confers did take in person or by telephone, they

do not appear to have been undertaken in good faith (e.g., discovery dispute brought up at a

mediation session or deposition, meet and confer conducted without any substantive discussion of

the issues). Moreover, in some instances, a meet and confer did not even take place.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows. The parties shall meet and confer on all

eight discovery motions. See Docket Nos. 123, 127, 131, 133, 138, 144, 145, and 146. The meet

and confer shall be in person with the participation of counsel who have full and complete authority

on discovery matters. In addition, lead trial counsel must be available (at the very least by

telephone) to participate in the meet and confer where necessary. The parties are forewarned that,

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 7
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

2

before a party will be permitted to seek judicial resolution of any discovery dispute, that dispute

must have been substantively discussed by lead trial counsel. The parties are also forewarned that

Court staff may monitor the meet and confer to ensure that the meet and confer discussions are

undertaken in good faith. 

The meet and confer shall take place in the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco on July 8,

2005, at 10:00 a.m. The parties should convene in Courtroom C.

If there are any disputes that remain after the meet and confer process, the parties shall file a

joint letter by 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2005. In the letter, the parties shall identify the names of the

participants (including lead trial counsel), each remaining dispute, and a brief statement of the

parties’ respective position on each such dispute. Applicable legal authority should be cited and

discussed where necessary. The parties should use the attached template for their joint letter. 

Absent further order of the Court, the joint letter shall be filed in lieu of any formal briefing

(whether opposition or reply) on the discovery motions. 

As a final note, the Court cautions the parties that both sides have engaged in unnecessary

posturing and the Court will not look kindly upon any party that continues to engage in such

conduct. The Court further cautions the parties that any party that takes a position that is not

substantially justified may be subject to sanctions. The Court notes for the parties’ benefit that there

many issues that they should be able to resolve without the need for judicial intervention, in

particular, those disputes that do not raise any privilege issues. The Court fully expects that the

parties, in meet and conferring in good faith, will be able to resolve at the very least these matters.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 7
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

3

The August 3, 2005, hearing on the eight discovery motions is hereby VACATED. To the

extent that the joint letter raises discovery disputes in need of judicial resolution, those disputes shall

be heard on August 4, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. The Court reserves the authority to require lead trial

counsel to attend the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 3 of 7
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

1

 Note for Counsel: The Court may request a courtesy copy of the joint letter to be faxed to

chambers. If so, counsel should still file a copy of the joint letter with the Clerk of the Court. The letter

faxed to chambers is a courtesy copy only. As a general matter, parties may not fax any papers to the

Court without prior leave of the Court.

2

 Note for Counsel: Unnecessary exhibits should not be attached.

4

EXHIBIT 1 -- SAMPLE JOINT LETTER

[Date]

VIA [METHOD]1

Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

U.S. District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: [Case number and case name]

Dear Judge Chen:

The parties have met and conferred regarding several discovery disputes. The meet and

confer took place on [date], with the participation of [Plaintiff’s attorney], representing Plaintiff, and

[Defendant’s attorney], representing Defendant. The meet and confer was [in person or over the

telephone] and lasted approximately [minutes or hours].

I. RESOLVED DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties reached agreement on several discovery disputes. Those agreements are as

follows:

[Description of Agreement No. 1.]

[Description of Agreement No. 2.]

[Description of Agreement No. 3, etc.]

II. REMAINING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties were not able to reach agreement on the remaining discovery disputes. Those

remaining disputes and the parties’ respective positions are provided below. Copies of the relevant

discovery requests and responses are attached as Exhibits [numbers].2

A. [Dispute No. 1]

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 4 of 7
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

3

 Note for Counsel: Each party’s position should be stated succinctly (e.g., in one paragraph).

The purpose of the joint letter is to inform the Court of the essence of the dispute in lieu of full briefing.

The Court may order full briefing and/or a hearing if necessary.

5

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]3

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

B. [Dispute No. 2]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

C. [Dispute No. 3]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

D. [Dispute No. 4, etc.]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

Sincerely,

[Plaintiff’s counsel] [Defendant’s counsel]

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 5 of 7
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

4

 Note for Counsel: The Court may request a courtesy copy of the joint letter to be faxed to

chambers. If so, counsel should still file a copy of the joint letter with the Clerk of the Court. The letter

faxed to chambers is a courtesy copy only. As a general matter, parties may not fax any papers to the

Court without prior leave of the Court.

5

 Note for Counsel: Unnecessary exhibits should not be attached.

6

EXHIBIT 1 -- SAMPLE JOINT LETTER

[Date]

VIA [METHOD]4

Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

U.S. District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: [Case number and case name]

Dear Judge Chen:

The parties have met and conferred regarding several discovery disputes. The meet and

confer took place on [date], with the participation of [Plaintiff’s attorney], representing Plaintiff, and

[Defendant’s attorney], representing Defendant. The meet and confer was [in person or over the

telephone] and lasted approximately [minutes or hours].

I. RESOLVED DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties reached agreement on several discovery disputes. Those agreements are as

follows:

[Description of Agreement No. 1.]

[Description of Agreement No. 2.]

[Description of Agreement No. 3, etc.]

II. REMAINING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties were not able to reach agreement on the remaining discovery disputes. Those

remaining disputes and the parties’ respective positions are provided below. Copies of the relevant

discovery requests and responses are attached as Exhibits [numbers].5

A. [Dispute No. 1]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

B. [Dispute No. 2]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

C. [Dispute No. 3]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

D. [Dispute No. 4, etc.]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

Sincerely,

[Plaintiff’s counsel] [Defendant’s counsel]

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

Case 4:04-cv-00492-PJH Document 151 Filed 07/01/05 Page 7 of 7