Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTINA A. DAVIS, CASE NO. CV-F-05-00371 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION (Doc. 25)

vs.

CIGNA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

 /

On June 14, 2005, plaintiff Grantrina A. Davis filed an ex parte application requesting various

forms of relief: (1) find defense counsel in contempt for providing false information to the Court, e.g.,

that plaintiff's phone number was disconnected and therefore the parties were unable to meet and confer

for the scheduling conference; (2) requests a meeting to "assist both parties obtaining a fair trial, meeting

timely deadlines and assistance in mitigating any future claims," (3) requests that defense counsel no

longer contact plaintiff at home - defense counsel purportedly has other phone numbers for plaintiff.

The Court determines the ex parte application is appropriate for resolution without response by

defendant. 

The Court DENIES the request to hold defendant’s counsel in contempt. The Court granted

defendant’s request for a continuance of the June scheduling conference due to representations from

defendant that defendant was moving to compel arbitration under an agreement. Defendant moved to

compel arbitration on June 14, 2005, which is set for hearing on July 25, 2005. The scheduling

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 30 Filed 06/16/05 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

2

conference, therefore, is premature until after the motion is decided.

The Court DENIES the request for a meeting. The parties have a duty to deal in good faith with

each other and to meet and confer on issues of dispute throughout the case. Plaintiff may use the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules for resolution of disputes.

The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s request and DIRECTS defendant’s counsel not to contact

plaintiff at her residence. The Court determines that it is plaintiff’s decision where she wishes to be

contacted, as long as she is available at a telephone number and address. If plaintiff is unavailable at the

address and phone number provided, defendant may file a motion re unavailability. Plaintiff has a duty

under Local Rule 83-183 to keep defendant and the Court informed of a current address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 30 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2