From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Lahood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Case No. CV 11-04391 EJD (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. CV 11-04391 EJD (HRL)

03-15-2013

BOBBY SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND LAHOOD, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612) United States Attorney ALEX TSE (CSBN 152348) Chief, Civil Division CLAIRE T. CORMIER (CSBN 154364) Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Raymond LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation


MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
ALEX TSE (CSBN 152348)
Chief, Civil Division
CLAIRE T. CORMIER (CSBN 154364)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
Raymond LaHood,
Secretary, United States Department of Transportation

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCUSING COUNSEL FROM

IN-PERSON MEET AND CONFER

REQUIREMENT

The fact discovery cutoff for this case is March 14, 2013. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, the deadline for filing motions to compel fact discovery is March 21, 2013.

Plaintiff has recently retained new counsel. On March 11, 2013, plaintiff's counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defendant's counsel relating to some previous discovery responses by defendant. In addition, defendant's counsel pointed out some discovery to plaintiff, responses to which are overdue.

In order to allow for the parties and counsel sufficient time to properly meet and confer and attempt to resolve these matters without intervention by the Court, the parties have submitted to Judge Davila a stipulation and proposed order extending the deadline for motions to compel fact discovery.

This case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd for discovery purposes. Accordingly, Judge Lloyd's Discovery Dispute Joint Report procedures would apply to this case. Because plaintiff's attorney's office is in Decatur, Georgia, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST that they be excused from the requirement for in-person meet and confer prior to the submission of a Discovery Dispute Joint Report. Instead, the parties propose that they be required to participate in telephone meet and confer prior to the submission of a Discovery Dispute Joint Report.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC

____________________

Christopher D. Vaughn

Attorney for Plaintiff

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

By: _______________

CLAIRE T. CORMIER

I, Claire T. Cormier, hereby attest that I have been authorized to submit the electronic signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Sanders v. Lahood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Case No. CV 11-04391 EJD (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Sanders v. Lahood

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND LAHOOD, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

Case No. CV 11-04391 EJD (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)