Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher R. Harris
Plaintiff
San Jose Mercury News, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER RE TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE CALL OF SEPTEMBER

22, 2005

Previously, the Court instructed the parties, through staff, to file a two- to three-page joint

letter regarding a dispute over the deposition of Plaintiff Christopher Harris. The parties were told

that the purpose of the joint letter was to inform the Court of the essence of the dispute and that each

party should lay out in a paragraph or two its position regarding the dispute, citing any relevant case

law. Instead, the parties filed an eight-page letter, and with more than fifty pages of exhibits.

The Court hereby orders the parties to refile the joint letter by the end of the day today

consistent with the Court’s previous instructions. If the parties fail to comply with the Court’s

instructions, then the Court shall issue an order to show cause, asking why the parties should not be

held in contempt of Court.

The telephone conference call set for today at 3:30 p.m. is hereby VACATED. Instead, the

parties are to report to the courthouse on September 23, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for an in person meet and

confer to be monitored by the Court. Lead counsel or counsel with full and complete authority on

discovery shall be required to attend. The meet and confer should cover the dispute covered in the

parties’ joint letter of September 22, 2005. It should also cover the disputes raised in the letter from

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 110 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

Mr. Harris’s counsel of September 21, 2005. The Court notes that, although Mr. Harris’s counsel

was specifically instructed that any additional disputes should be raised by joint letter, counsel failed

to do so. Moreover, based on the Court’s review of the letter, it is hard pressed to understand why

the disputes cannot be resolved by the parties without the need for Court intervention. The parties

are forewarned that the Court shall not tolerate such conduct in the future and further that they risk

being subject to sanctions if the parties’ unnecessary posturing persists or if either party takes a

position that is not substantially justified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 110 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2