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

 Although the filing is entitled “ex parte,” counsel for plaintiff served his filing on 1

opposing counsel and provided the court with a certificate of service.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAFAR AFSHAR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1088 LKK JFM 

vs.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By order filed July 15, 2005, plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 motion to compel was

continued to Thursday, August 4, 2005, so counsel could meet and confer and file a joint

stipulation that complied with Local Rule 37-251. 

On July 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for order shortening time, asking that

the motion be advanced to the July 21, 2005 calendar. Plaintiff also sought to advance his 1

concurrently-filed cross-motion to compel the depositions of defendant County of Sacramento,

Sheriff’s Department; Defendant Blanas; and Deputy Spaid and to require the County of

Sacramento Sheriff’s Department to produce documents that were requested in the deposition

notices. 

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Initially, the court notes that plaintiff’s request for order shortening time does not

meet the requirements for a request for order shortening time. Local Rule 6-142(e). 

Plaintiff objects to the delay of his May 17 motion to compel, stating that the

previously-filed joint stipulations

are almost identical, except maybe some modified arguments, and

that there will be no change in the position of the parties as the

Defendant is standing by what is remaining in both the stipulations. 

Additional meet and confer will not produce anymore

supplemental discovery responses. I can go back and refile the

stipulation because my position has not changed, and neither will

Defendants.

(Pl.’s July 15, 2005 Request at 4.) 

Local Rule 37-251(b) provides:

a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, including

any motion to exceed discovery limitations or motion for

protective order, shall not be heard unless (1) the parties have

conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the

parties have set forth their differences and the bases therefor in a

joint statement re discovery disagreement. Counsel for all

interested parties shall confer in advance of the filing of the motion

or in advance of the hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to

resolve the differences that are the subject of the motion. Counsel

for the moving party or prospective moving party shall be

responsible for arranging the conference, which shall be held at a

time and place and in a manner mutually convenient to counsel.

Id. 

It is apparent from the record that counsel are having difficulty coping with the

impending discovery cut-off date, which is presently set for September 4, 2005. However,

contrary to plaintiff’s statement that “[t]he Pre-Trial order came out April 6, 2005, which was the

date discovery could commence” (Pl.’s July 15, 2005 Motion at 4), the parties’ joint status report

stated “compliance with FRCP 26(a) will be accomplished on or before October 1, 2004.” (Joint

Status Report, filed August 20, 2004, at 2.) The district court initially set a discovery deadline of

April 30, 2005, which was extended to September 4, 2005, due to Mr. Gorski’s substitution as

counsel for plaintiff. Whether the short extension of the discovery deadline was based on

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

plaintiff’s first counsel’s failure to timely pursue discovery or not, plaintiff must adhere to the

deadline or seek leave from the district court to obtain a second extension. This case was filed

June 7, 2004, and the parties are entitled to a timely resolution of these allegations.

By the same token, defendants may not drag their feet and obstruct plaintiff’s

efforts to obtain discovery prior to the deadline.

It is clear from the record that counsel are not taking seriously the “meet and

confer” obligation required by Local Rule 37-251. Meet and confer does not mean sending

letters or e-mails or merely recounting the position of both sides in a written document submitted

to the court. The “meet and confer” language requires that counsel get together in a room and

discuss the outstanding discovery; stipulate to those matters that can be resolved, and place in the

joint stipulation only those matters to which resolution cannot be obtained. Such effort must be

undertaken in good faith. 

A review of the “identical” joint stipulations submitted by plaintiff on June 28 and

29, 2005, and the declarations accompanying them, will reflect that counsel did not comply with

these “meet and confer” requirements. Should plaintiff choose to simply re-file the previously

submitted joint stipulation, he will be subject to the imposition of sanctions for failing to comply

with this court’s prior orders and the Local Rules.

As to plaintiff’s motion to compel the depositions of the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department and Lou Blanas, plaintiff may address his position in his opposition to

defendants’ motion for protective order as to these depositions, presently calendared for hearing

on August 4, 2005. Counsel will be required to meet and confer in good faith as to these

depositions as well. It is not necessary to file a separate motion concerning these depositions and

their attendant document requests.

Plaintiff contends that he duly noticed Deputy Spaid’s deposition for July 6, 2005,

and neither counsel nor Deputy Spaid appeared for that deposition. Defendants did not include

in their motion for protective order the deposition of Deputy Spaid. However, judicial economy

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

would dictate hearing plaintiff’s motion to compel Deputy Spaid’s deposition at the same time

defendants’ motion for protective order as to the other depositions is heard. Thus, if counsel

stipulate to hearing plaintiff’s motion to compel Deputy Spaid’s deposition at the August 4, 2005

hearing, the court will also hear argument on this motion. Otherwise, plaintiff must re-notice the

motion to compel Deputy Spaid’s deposition.

Finally, given the acrimony developing in this case, as well as the impending

discovery deadline, counsel shall be prepared to address all pending discovery at the August 4,

2005 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is denied.

2. Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in good faith, pursuant to Local Rule

37-251, by getting together in a room, and discussing plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 motion to overrule

objections and compel further responses, as early and as many times as is necessary to timely file

the revised joint stipulation required by Local Rule 37-251 and this court’s prior orders. 

3. No later than Friday, July 29, 2005, counsel shall file a joint stipulation

pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 as to plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 motion.

4. Counsel are also directed to meet and confer, as defined above, concerning

defendants’ June 30, 2005 motion for protective order.

5. No later than Friday, July 29, 2005, counsel shall file a joint stipulation

pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 as to defendants’ June 30, 2005 motion for protective order. 

6. Hearing on plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 motion to compel and defendants’ June

30, 2005 motion for protective order is confirmed for hearing on Thursday, August 4, 2005, at

11:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

7. This matter is also set for discovery conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(f) at 11:00 a.m. on August 4, 2005. 

DATED: July 20, 2005.

/001; afshar.ost

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 52 Filed 07/20/05 Page 5 of 5