Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03791-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory S. Daily
Counter-defendant
Federal Insurance Company
Counter-claimant
Royal Insurance Company of America
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY S. DAILY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-3791 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE MEET AND CONFER

The parties have filed several letters with Judge Hamilton, indicating that they have a

discovery dispute regarding the terms of a protective order. More specifically, Plaintiff Gregory S.

Daily has asked the Court to “enter an order making clear that settlement and mediation

communications are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any party absent the consent of the

other parties to the communication.” Letter of 6/16/05 from D. Weiss to Court at 2. Mr. Daily

argues that this relief is necessary because Defendant Federal Insurance Company improperly

submitted to the Court and placed in the public record a confidential settlement/mediation

communication.

The Court hereby orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute in

accordance with its standing order on discovery procedures. Based on the letters submitted by the

parties, it appears that the parties have simply met and conferred in writing. The Court’s standing

order requires that parties meet and confer in person, except where good cause is shown why a

telephone meeting is adequate. Here, given that counsel for Mr. Daily is located in San Francisco

and counsel for Federal in Los Angeles, a telephone meet and confer shall be permitted. However,

Case 4:04-cv-03791-PJH Document 98 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 4
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

the Court emphasizes for the parties that written meet and confers are not adequate. Moreover, the

Court orders that either lead trial counsel shall participate in the meet and confer or counsel with full

and complete authority on discovery matters. To the extent that any proposed protective order may

affect Defendant Royal Insurance Company of America, counsel for Royal should also be a part of

the meet and confer.

As a final point, the Court notes that the dispute as currently framed is whether or not a

protective order should include a specific provision on the confidentiality of communications

regarding settlement and/or mediation. In other words, the Court is not being asked to make any

determination as to whether -- as claimed by Mr. Daily -- Federal improperly submitted to the Court

and placed in the public record a confidential settlement/mediation communication. Given this

limitation, the Court is hard pressed to understand why the parties are unable to resolve this dispute

without the need for judicial intervention. The parties are forewarned that the Court will not look

kindly upon unnecessary posturing by either party and that any party that takes a position that is not

substantially justified may be subject to sanctions.

The meet and confer ordered by the Court shall take place by June 29, 2005. If the parties

are unable to resolve the dispute, they shall file a joint letter with the Court by July 6, 2005. The

joint letter should reflect when the in-person meet and confer took place, how long it lasted, and who

participated. The joint letter should also inform the Court of the issues on which the parties were

able to which agreement and the issues, if any, still in need of resolution. For each remaining

dispute, the parties should provide brief statements in support of their respective positions, including

citation to any applicable legal authority. The parties should use the attached template for their joint

letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-03791-PJH Document 98 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Note for Counsel: The Court may request a courtesy copy of the joint letter to be faxed to

chambers. If so, counsel should still file a copy of the joint letter with the Clerk of the Court. The letter

faxed to chambers is a courtesy copy only. As a general matter, parties may not fax any papers to the

Court without prior leave of the Court.

2

 Note for Counsel: Unnecessary exhibits should not be attached.

3

SAMPLE JOINT LETTER

[Date]

VIA [METHOD]1

Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

U.S. District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: [Case number and case name]

Dear Judge Chen:

The parties have met and conferred regarding several discovery disputes. The meet and

confer took place on [date], with the participation of [Plaintiff’s attorney], representing Plaintiff, and

[Defendant’s attorney], representing Defendant. The meet and confer was in person and lasted

approximately [minutes or hours].

I. RESOLVED DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties reached agreement on several discovery disputes. Those agreements are as

follows:

[Description of Agreement No. 1.]

[Description of Agreement No. 2.]

[Description of Agreement No. 3, etc.]

II. REMAINING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties were not able to reach agreement on the remaining discovery disputes. Those

remaining disputes and the parties’ respective positions are provided below. Copies of the relevant

discovery requests and responses are attached as Exhibits [numbers].2

A. [Dispute No. 1]

Case 4:04-cv-03791-PJH Document 98 Filed 06/22/05 Page 3 of 4
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

3

 Note for Counsel: Each party’s position should be stated succinctly (e.g., in one paragraph).

The purpose of the joint letter is to inform the Court of the essence of the dispute in lieu of full briefing.

The Court may order full briefing and/or a hearing if necessary.

4

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]3

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

B. [Dispute No. 2]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

C. [Dispute No. 3]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

D. [Dispute No. 4, etc.]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

Sincerely,

[Plaintiff’s counsel] [Defendant’s counsel]

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

Case 4:04-cv-03791-PJH Document 98 Filed 06/22/05 Page 4 of 4