Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01744/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01744-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Casualty Company
Plaintiff
Crown Credit Company
Defendant
Crown Equipment Corporation
Defendant
St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company
Defendant
George J. Stephan
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-07-1744 MCE EFB

v.

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE

COMPANY; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Parties and third parties (collectively, “parties”) have filed four discovery motions

scheduled for hearing before this court on December 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom

No. 25. These are: (1) Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum, served upon third parties

Crown Equipment Corporation, Crown Credit Company, and their counsel of record, George J.

Stephan, filed by defendant St. Paul Surplus Lines on November 11, 2008 [Docket No. 42]; (2)

Motion to Quash Overbroad Subpoenas, filed by third parties Crown Equipment Corporation,

Crown Credit Company, and their counsel or record, George J. Stephan, on November 12, 2008

[47]; (3) Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of

Documents, Set One, filed by plaintiff on November 12, 2008 [48]; and (4) Motion for

Protective Order filed by defendant on November 12, 2008 [49]. 

The first and second motions address the same discovery matter. A different discovery

matter is addressed both by the third and fourth motions. 

The parties have already filed hundreds of pages of documents in support of, and

opposition to, these motions. However, the local rules of this court require that the parties meet

and confer in a good faith effort to resolve their discovery disagreements and present to the court

in a single document, or joint statement, a succinct discussion setting forth each side of each item

in dispute. See E. D. Cal. L. R. 37-251(a)-(d). This process and product are particularly

important in complex litigation involving several lawyers. 

Accordingly, the above discovery disputes shall be consolidated into two joint statements

the first representing motions [42] and [47]; the second representing motions [48] and [49]. 

Case 2:07-cv-01744-TLN-EFB Document 50 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 2
Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251, these joint statements shall

be filed not later than four court days before the scheduled hearing, or by Thursday, December

4, 2008, by 5:00 p.m.

The parties are reminded of the necessity of meeting and conferring in good faith, and

attempting to resolve their discovery disputes prior to preparation of their joint statements. E.D.

Cal. L.R. 37-251(b), (c)(1). The joint statements addressing those matters that cannot be

resolved informally shall include: (1) the specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the

response; (3) the moving party’s position; and (4) the opposition. E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). 

While pertinent exhibits are normally attached to the joint statement, ibid., the parties may in

these circumstances reference exhibits already filed.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in extraordinary

circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege log. The

failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to waive it. 

The moving party is normally responsible for filing a joint statement. In these

circumstances, opposing parties will be equally responsible for timely drafting and submitting

their position to the other side, so that the resulting joint statement represents the parties’

narrowed disputes, and both sides shall be responsible for timely filing each joint statement. 

Failure of either party to use best efforts to ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

In the event a hearing is rescheduled, the joint statement shall be due not later than five

court days before the rescheduled hearing.

DATED: November 20, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01744-TLN-EFB Document 50 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2