Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CLEARLAKE POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-03365 EDL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME,

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION TO

COMPEL, CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND

ORDERING PARTIES TO MEET AND

CONFER

On April 7, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to shorten time to hear their concurrently filed

motion to compel on the same date as the further case management conference set for April 29, 2008

and sufficiently in advance of the June 6, 2008 settlement conference. Defendant did not file an

opposition to the motion to shorten time, which was due no later than the third court day after

receiving the motion. See Civil L.R. 6-3(c). Because the Court finds no good cause to hear the

motion to compel on a shortened schedule, the motion to shorten time is denied. The motion to

compel will be heard on the normal schedule on May 13, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant’s opposition

shall be filed no later than April 22, 2008, and Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed no later than April 29,

2008. The further case management conference is continued to May 13, 2008. A joint case

management conference statement shall be filed no later than May 6, 2008. 

The Court cautions Plaintiffs that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local

Rules require that they meet and confer with opposing counsel prior to filing any discovery motion. 

See Civil L.R. 37-1(a) (“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

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 42 Filed 04/14/08 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

2

of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.”). Specifically: 

“Meet and confer” or “confer” means to communicate directly and discuss in good

faith the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order. Unless these Local

Rules otherwise provide or a Judge otherwise orders, such communication may take

place by telephone. The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail

communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to “meet and confer” or to

“confer.” Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and

discussion - either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation.

Civil L.R. 1-5(n). It appears from Plaintiffs’ brief that their meet and confer efforts consisted of

leaving voice-mail messages, without communicating directly with opposing counsel, one and two

days before serving the motion to compel, which does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. 

If they have not already done so, the parties shall immediately meet and confer in person or in a

telephone conversation in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 42 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2