Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

CO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIRITCHENKO ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY

MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion to Enter Defaults of Defendants

Lazarenko and Dugsbery Inc. or, in the Alternative, to Compel Defendants to Appear at Depositions

and Respond to Other Discovery (Doc No. 1264), Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

(Doc. No. 1267), Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. No. 1254), and Defendants’ Response to

Plaintiff’s motion to Shorten Time (Doc. No. 1266). For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice.

A party moving to compel disclosure must include with its motion a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nondisclosing party in an effort

to secure the disclosure without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A). Under the Civil Local

Rules, “meet and confer” or “confer” means “to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the

issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order.” See Civ. L.R. 1-5(n). The exchange may take

place by telephone, however, “[t]he mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail

communication ... does not satisfy a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to confer.” Id. This

requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face to face

meeting or in a telephone conversation.” Id. (emphasis added). Further, the Court “will not

entertain a request or a

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1275 Filed 03/21/07 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

motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to FRCivP 37, counsel have

previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.” Civ. L.R. 37-1(a). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to follow these rules. Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to engage in

direct communications with the exception of one recent direct conversation. See Weinberg Decl. in

Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion to Enter Defaults, at 2:11-18

(Doc. No. 1265) (noting that Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email expressly declining to communicate

“over the phone,” because “we prefer to communicate in writing,” and that Plaintiff only left a

voicemail message on March 8, 2007). Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to promptly

engage in meet and confer, in good faith and with direct dialogue and discussion, pursuant to the

Local Rules (which should be accomplished within one week, absent compelling circumstances). 

After meeting and conferring, if the parties still cannot resolve or narrow their disputes, Plaintiff

may refile its motion, complete with a certification detailing the steps taken to meet and confer

directly with Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2); Civ. L.R. 37-1(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1275 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2