Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02329-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PLAN

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM WALTER BURNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARLENE C. BURNS RHINE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PLAN

(Re: Docket No. 46)

Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff William Burns requesting the court to order 

Defendants Arlene Burns Rhine and Tony Rhine to submit a discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(f)(3) so that discovery in this action may begin.

1

 On August 25 of this year, Defendants

filed a case management statement that included a brief discussion of the discovery to be taken.

2

 

The court held case management conferences on September 1 and October 13.3 Finally, on 

October 27, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference.

4

 Nevertheless, the parties still have not 

filed a discovery plan.

 

1

See Docket No. 46.

2

See Docket No. 24 at 3 (“No discovery has taken place to date. Anticipated discovery is 

depositions of the parties, requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production.”). 

The parties in this case filed separate case management statements, which Civ. L.R. 16-9(a) 

permitted because Burns is not represented by counsel. See Docket Nos. 24, 27. If the parties had 

been able to agree to a joint case management statement, it should have included a discovery plan. 

See Standing Order for All Judges of the N. Dist. of Cal. – Contents of Joint Case Management 

Statement.

3

See Docket Nos. 28, 42.

4

See Docket No. 45 at 1. The court had ordered the parties to hold the conference no later than 

November 3. See Docket No. 42.

Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PLAN

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

Six months after it was filed, the case remains effectively stalled. A jump start from the 

court appears necessary. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion IN-PART. The parties 

shall file a joint discovery plan that complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)

within 14 days. As Rule 26(f)(3) dictates, the plan should include at least “the subjects on which 

discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be 

conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues.”

5

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(B).

Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 47 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2