Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 7, 2015, the Court issued an order on Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. See Doc. No. 43. As part of the order, the Court gave both parties the opportunity to 

file additional motions – a motion to amend for Plaintiff and a second summary judgment motion 

for Defendant. See id. However, the Court put restrictions on the parties. See id. First, the Court 

required the parties to have a good faith belief in the merits of their motion, consistent with Rule 

11. See id. Second, the Court required the parties to meet and confer. See id. In pertinent part, 

the Court held: “Prior to the parties pursuing either a motion to amend or a second summary 

judgment motion, the parties are to meet and confer in order to help determine the advisability of 

pursuing either motion. The failure of a party to meet and confer will result in the denial of that 

party’s motion.” Id. The Court gave Defendant 14 days in which to file a request to pursue a 

second summary judgment motion. 

On October 21, 2015, Defendant filed a request and statement of intent to file a second 

summary judgment motion. See Doc. No. 44. In that request, defense counsel explains that it has 

a good faith belief that no genuine dispute of material fact exists, but that it may not file a motion 

if it later determines that a genuine dispute of material fact does exist. See id. Defense counsel

TREVOR WEEKS,

Plaintiff

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO FILE SECOND 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

(Doc. No. 44)

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 46 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

then states: “On more than one occasion, Defendant has reached out to Plaintiff’s new counsel to 

meet and confer regarding Defendant’s intent to seek leave to file a second summary judgment 

motion. In one e-communication, Defendant asked counsel to identify specific times during which 

counsel would be available to discuss the issues raised in the Order. Defendant did not receive a 

response. Defendant will continue to reach out to counsel.” Id.

Also on October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response. See Doc. No. 45. Plaintiff’s counsel 

states that she “disagrees that defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with plaintiff’s 

counsel as the Court ordered counsel to do prior to filing defendant’s instant request. Plaintiff’s 

counsel is now and has always been available to meet and confer during this 14-day period – via 

telephone, e-mail, U.S. Mail, fax or text, but has received no meet and confer communication from 

defendant’s counsel.” Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s counsel then states that Defendant’s 

request should be denied or Defendant should be made to meet and confer prior to the Court 

considering Defendant’s request. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates that she intends to 

pursue a motion to amend with the Magistrate Judge. See id.

The Court is very dismayed by the parties’ October 21 filings. Defense counsel states that 

he attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel “on several occasions,” but he does not state when or 

how those attempts were made. Plaintiff’s counsel states the she received no attempts to meet and 

confer, but was available to meet within the 14 day period through a number of mediums. When 

the Court issues an order that requires parties to meet and confer, the Court expects its orders to be 

followed and the parties to act in good faith. The parties’ October 21 filings do not indicate good 

faith, and the situation is unacceptable.

The Court will give the parties another opportunity to meet and confer. The meet and 

confer will be through either telephone conversation(s) or face to face meeting(s) – fax, text, and 

e-mail are insufficient. The meet and confer session(s) shall be conducted in good faith and shall 

involve a legitimate discussion of the issues and possible material disputed facts. Perfunctory 

conversations are insufficient. If the parties do not meet and confer within the time allotted, and 

the Defendant still wishes to proceed on a second summary judgment motion, Defendant shall file 

a notice that includes a description of the meet and confer efforts, including the date and time and 

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 46 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

medium that a meet and confer attempt was made, as well as the Plaintiff’s response (if any) to the 

attempt. If the Court finds that Defendant made a good faith effort to attempt to meet and confer, 

but Plaintiff did not adequately cooperate, then Defendant will be permitted to file a second 

summary judgment motion and Plaintiff’s counsel will be ordered to show cause why she should 

not be sanctioned. This procedure will also apply with respect to Plaintiff’s motion to amend, 

should the case progress to that point. Whichever party the Court determines is responsible for a 

failure to meet and confer will face the withdrawal of permission to file the motion in question 

(either the motion to amend or the second summary judgment motion), monetary sanctions, or 

both.1

The Court expects both parties to use best to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court

does not expect to have to issue further orders or warnings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. As soon as possible, but no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this 

order, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a second summary judgment motion by 

Defendant;

2. No later than five (5) days after the parties have met and conferred (as described above), 

Defendant shall notify the Court whether it wishes to file a second summary judgment 

motion;

3. The October 7, 2015 order’s 28-day deadline for the parties to contact the Magistrate Judge 

is VACATED, and will be reset at a later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Of course, if a party decides that it does not wish to pursue a motion, no meet and confer effort is necessary.

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 46 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3