Opinion
No. C 06-3340 SBA (JL).
June 8, 2007
ORDER
All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong) as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. This district court issued an order (Docket # 92) referring discovery disputes to this Court for resolution. Specifically, the following issues:
"Lee contends that the defendants have failed to produce portions of transcripts, have failed to produce a number of individual defendants for deposition, have produced only two minutes of a 911 tape, and have failed to produce police training policies and procedures." (Order at 1:19-22)
As provided in this Court's Standing Order regarding discovery disputes, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer within ten days of the e-filing of this Order and to file either their joint statement or their individual statements, within five days of meeting and conferring. This Court's Standing Order provides:
Parties shall meet and confer in person, or, if counsel are located outside the Bay Area, by telephone, to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer.
If, after a good faith effort, the parties have not resolved their dispute, they shall prepare a concise joint statement of 5 pages or less without affidavits or exhibits, stating the nature and status of their dispute. If a joint statement is not possible, each side may submit a brief individual statement of 2 pages or less. The joint statement or individual statements shall be filed or e-filed, and courtesy copies submitted as provided by the Civil Local Rules. The Court will advise the parties regarding the need, if any, for more formal briefing or a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.