Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05202/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05202-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Motorists Insurance Company
Plaintiff
American Re-Insurance Company
Defendant

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

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-5202 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Discovery disputes in the above-referenced case have been referred to the undersigned. 

Currently pending before the Court are seven discovery motions:

(1) Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order for Deposition of Richard Murphy (Docket No.

31);

(2) Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash (Docket No. 36);

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Richard Murphy to Appear for Deposition (Docket No. 46);

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause re Contempt for Refusal of Bruce Winkelman to

Appear for Subpoenaed Deposition (Docket No. 50);

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Responses (Docket No. 53);

(6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel D to Provide Further Responses to Rogs and to Produce

Documents (Docket No. 56); and

(7) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Privilege Log and Answers to RFP, Set

2 (Docket No. 78).

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 82 Filed 03/22/07 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

These motions are currently set for hearing on April 25, 2007.

The Court has reviewed the motions, and, based on the opening briefs, the Court questions

the adequacy of the meet-and-confer discussions between the parties. The parties should have been

able to resolve many of the disputes on their own, without the need for judicial intervention. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that the parties further meet and confer regarding all seven

motions above. The meet and confer must be conducted either in person or by telephone (an

exchange of mail or e-mails is not sufficient), and lead trial counsel must participate.

In lieu of any opposition or reply brief, the parties shall file by April 6, 2007, a joint letter

discussing the results of their meet and confer. The joint letter should reflect when the 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. 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 will be subject to sanctions. The Court reserves the option to

require a meet and confer at the courthouse with client representatives in attendance.

Finally, the Court orders that, for each and every future discovery dispute, there must be a

good faith meet and confer conducted either in person or by telephone with the participation of lead

trial counsel. If the meet and confer does not resolve the dispute, then, in lieu of full briefing, the

parties shall submit a joint letter similar to that described above. The Court may order full briefing

and/or a hearing if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 82 Filed 03/22/07 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: Unnecessary exhibits should not be attached.

2

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

paragraphs). 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.

3

JOINT LETTER TEMPLATE

[Date]

VIA [METHOD]

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 or by

telephone] 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].1

A. [Dispute No. 1]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]2

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

B. [Dispute No. 2]

Case 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 82 Filed 03/22/07 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

4

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 4:05-cv-05202-CW Document 82 Filed 03/22/07 Page 4 of 4