Opinion
23-cv-03536-MMC (LJC)
06-26-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MELINDA TERUEL, Defendant.
NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING REFERRAL FOR DISCOVERY ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 52
LISA J. CISNEROS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros for discovery.
The Court understands from the parties' Joint Status Report previously submitted to Judge Chesney (ECF No. 45), and from the transcript of the May 10, 2024 status conference (ECF No. 48), that each party in this case is seeking discovery: Plaintiff (the United States) and Plaintiff-Intervenors are each seeking written discovery from Defendant, and Defendant is seeking an inspection of Plaintiff-Intervenors' home. Regardless of any previous meet-and-confer efforts to date, the parties are instructed to meet and confer either in person or by videoconference no later than July 11, 2024, and to file up to three joint letters no later than July 18, 2024 raising any disputes not resolved at that conference: (1) a joint letter by Plaintiff-Intervenors and Defendant addressing Plaintiff-Intervenors' requests for discovery; (2) a joint letter by Plaintiff and Defendant addressing Plaintiff's requests for discovery; and (3) a joint letter by Defendant and Plaintiff-Intervenors addressing Defendant's request for a home inspection. If the parties' conference results in a partial agreement to produce some but not all of the discovery sought, the parties to any such agreement may stipulate to a reasonable extension of time for their joint letter, in order to allow the propounding party time to review the partial production and determine whether to pursue the dispute.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Court's Standing Order, the parties may attach as exhibits relevant excerpts of discovery requests and discovery responses, not exceeding twelve pages of exhibits per joint letter. The parties must comply in all other respects with section F (Discovery) of the Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros.
The Court will address each dispute on its own merits and expects the parties to do the same. One party's refusal to provide discovery that a second party believes is relevant is no basis for the second party to refuse to provide otherwise proper discovery in turn.
Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the parties raising that dispute in a manner consisted with this Court's Standing Order, as discussed above. The Court will not rely on that Motion in resolving any subsequent joint letter, and the parties may not incorporate the Motion by reference.
For all future discovery disputes that the parties seek to resolve through this Court, the parties must comply with the procedures set forth in the Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Cisneros.
IT IS SO ORDERED.