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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-0767 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER RE PENDING DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

On March 1, 2010, the Court issued an order which set forth, in detail, the procedure the

parties were to follow regarding certain outstanding discovery disputes. (Dkt. #47.) Specifically,

based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with her discovery obligations in this case, the Court ordered

as follows:

1) By March 4, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff or her designee shall hand deliver to

Defendant’s counsel at his address of record a written notice providing ten (10) time

periods within the following three (3) weeks (March 8, 2010 through March 29,

2010) that she is available to meet and confer in person. The 10 time periods shall

provide for at least three (3) consecutive hours each for the meet and confer session. 

2) Plaintiff shall e-file the notice, as well as a proof of service, by March 4, 2010. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may manually file the notice and proof of service at the

Clerk’s Office by 1:00 p.m. on March 4, 2010. 

3) Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s notice, Mr. Silberman shall choose one of the 10 available

time periods, and then inform Plaintiff of his choice by March 5, 2010 at 1 p.m. Mr.

Silberman shall also determine a reasonable place for the meet and confer session to

occur. 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

4) Mr. Silberman shall e-file a statement informing Plaintiff of his choice and he shall

also notify her by telephone at her phone number of record, either directly or by

voicemail message. Regardless of whether Plaintiff may later claim she received no

message from Mr. Silberman, she is on notice based on the e-filed statement.

5) No further confirmation is required. The parties shall thereafter meet and confer at

the agreed-upon time and make a good faith effort to resolve all outstanding

discovery disputes. Any unresolved disputes shall be submitted to the Court in

compliance with the undersigned’s discovery standing order.

6) In the event that it becomes necessary to file joint letters for any remaining disputes,

the requesting party shall provide its portion to the objecting party first. The

objecting party shall then have seven (7) days to provide her/its portion of any joint

letter(s), and the requesting party shall then e-file the joint letter(s).

The Court warned Plaintiff that any failure to comply with the March 1 Order would result in the

imposition of sanctions. (Dkt. #47.)

The Court is now in receipt of three discovery dispute letters filed by Defendant. (Dkt.

##53-55.) Although it appears that the parties met in person, Plaintiff failed to provide her portion

of the letters within seven days as ordered. Accordingly, because the Court has provided multiple

opportunities for Plaintiff to comply with her discovery obligations and she routinely fails to

comply, the Court shall consider the letters as submitted, without Plaintiff’s position. The Court

shall issue an order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2