Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04018/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04018-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yolanda Cendejas
Plaintiff
Federal Insurance Company, Inc.
Defendant
The Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Yolanda Cendejas,

 Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Federal Insurance Company, Inc., a

New Jersey Corporation doing

business as The Chubb Group of

Insurance Companies,

 Defendant(s).

____________________________/

No. C 04-4018 TEH (WDB)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ON

PENDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The court has considered the papers that the parties have submitted addressing

their dispute about the schedule the court should adopt for hearing plaintiff’s motion to

compel. 

The court is most displeased with Mr. Adams’ and Ms. Peterson’s unprofessional

squabble about the history of the failed meet and confer process. 

A lawyer cannot satisfy the meet and confer requirements of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and of this Court by using a non-lawyer assistant as his proxy. Only

lawyers can “meet and confer” as that phrase is used in this setting. 

Nor may a lawyer attempt to mislead the court. Ms. Peterson’s Opposition brief

and her Declaration appear to be crafted so as to create the impression in the

undersigned’s mind that her client responded to both the interrogatories and the

document requests in issue here on August 29, 2005. Apparently that is not true.

Case 3:04-cv-04018-TEH Document 52 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Apparently the answers to interrogatories were timely served that day – but the document

production was not timely and was not made until about September 5, 2005. Ms.

Peterson is ADMONISHED to take more care in framing her presentations to the court

to make sure there is virtually no risk that the court will make erroneous fact inferences

from her words. 

The court also is very unhappy that counsel have managed to conduct discovery

in a manner that has yielded so many disputes that one side feels the need to devote a 16

page single-spaced letter to their articulation. The existence of so many discovery

disputes, without more, is prima facie support for a finding that there has been a failure

of professionalism and a violation of the mandates of both the federal and the local rules.

The court hereby formally ADMONISHES all counsel in this matter that the court will

impose substantial sanctions on any lawyer or party whose handling of discovery matters

does not conform to the applicable rules. The court also PUTS ALL COUNSEL ON

NOTICE that if they persist in presenting a large number of discovery disputes to the

court there will be an aggressive inquiry by the undersigned into the sources of this state

of affairs.

The Court hereby ORDERS Mr. Adams and Ms. Peterson to meet in person (faceto-face) by no later than Friday, October 21, 2005, to attempt to resolve any outstanding

discovery problems or disputes. Only if that face-to-face meeting leaves important

matters unresolved may Mr. Adams file a motion to compel. That motion must be filed

by Friday, October 28. Defendant’s opposition must be filed by Friday, November 4,

2005. Plaintiff’s reply must be filed by Wednesday, November 9, 2005. Thereafter, the

court will notify the parties if the court concludes that oral argument is necessary to

fairly resolve the matters in issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

 WAYNE D. BRAZIL

 United States Magistrate Judge

cc: parties, WDB, TEH, stats

Case 3:04-cv-04018-TEH Document 52 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2