Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FIRST RESORT, INC. v. HERRERA, CV 11-5534 SBA (KAW). (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140204793 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2014
Summary: SECOND JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the Court's January 2, January 13, and January 23, 2014 orders, Plaintiff FIRST RESORT, INC. ("First Resort") and defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DENNIS J. HERRERA and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ("Defendants" and, collectively with Plaintiff, the "Parties") submit this joint status report regarding the Parties' discovery disputes and advise the Court as follows: 1. Lead counsel
More

SECOND JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the Court's January 2, January 13, and January 23, 2014 orders, Plaintiff FIRST RESORT, INC. ("First Resort") and defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DENNIS J. HERRERA and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ("Defendants" and, collectively with Plaintiff, the "Parties") submit this joint status report regarding the Parties' discovery disputes and advise the Court as follows:

1. Lead counsel for Defendants, Erin Bernstein, began trial on January 21, 2014 and is still in trial.

2. On January 17, 2014, counsel for the Parties participated in a lengthy telephone call and addressed all of the issues set forth in their cross-motions to compel. Counsel for the Parties were able to resolve most of their issues during this meeting. Counsel also diligently worked to narrow the scope of certain outstanding discovery requests.

3. On January 30, 2014, counsel for the Parties participated in a second lengthy telephone call and addressed all of the issues that remained outstanding after their January 17 telephone conference. Counsel had a very productive discussion, and, to date, all but approximately four issues have been resolved. Regarding those outstanding issues the Parties have diligently worked to narrow the scope of their respective requests and have proposed a number of stipulations and amended discovery responses which require input from their respective clients.

4. Throughout these discussions, counsel for the Parties have diligently worked with their respective clients to search for responsive documents so that they will meet the previously agreed upon February 7, 2014 document production deadline.

5. Counsel expect to have a final conference again on February 3 or 4, 2014 to further discuss the four remaining disputed issues. Counsel will be able to advise the Court regarding what matters are outstanding for the Court to rule on by February 4, 2014.

In light of the foregoing, the Parties ask that (1) the Court refrain from issuing a ruling on their cross-motions to compel until the Parties have a chance to finalize their meet and confer process; and, (2) the Court allow the Parties to file a third and final joint status report on February 4, 2014; and (3) the Court allow the City to file an amended privilege log on February 4, 2014, if any privilege assertions remain in dispute.

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer