ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FURTHER MEET AND CONFER

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER IN PART

(ECF Nos. 174, 175)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On December 19, 2019, the parties filed stipulations requesting: (1) modification of the scheduling order; and (2) in camera review of documents that were produced with redactions during written discovery for the determination of whether privileges were properly asserted. (ECF Nos. 174, 175.)

As to the parties' request for in camera review, the Court notes that the only meet and confer effort between the parties that is described in the stipulation is a telephone conference that occurred over four months ago on August 6, 2019. (ECF No. 175.) The Court is disinclined to accommodate the parties' stipulated request for in camera review without a formal application accompanied with detailed affidavits describing the parties' efforts to meet and confer regarding this issue and the parties' respective positions that resulted in an impasse that requires court intervention. The Court orders the parties to further meet and confer concerning the dispute and advises the parties that the Court will not be inclined to entertain such request for in camera review without at least one in-person meeting where the parties attempt to resolve this dispute.1 If the parties have not resolved the dispute through meet and confer by January 10, 2020, the parties may then file the renewed request for in camera review with detailed affidavits for consideration by the Court.

The Court now turns to the parties' request to modify the scheduling order. While the Court recognizes that District Judge Drozd informed the parties that this matter is unlikely to get to trial on the currently set trial date due to the overburdened criminal docket, the stipulated request to modify the scheduling order does not request a change to the trial date or pre-trial conference, and the proposed date for filing of dispositive motions falls too close to the current dates set for the pre-trial conference and trial. Given the parties' request for in camera review resulting from apparently little to no effort at meeting and conferring on the issue, and the multiple amendments to the scheduling order already entered (ECF Nos. 115, 122, 150, 167, 170), it is not clear to the Court that the parties have been fully diligent in completing necessary discovery in accordance with established deadlines. Therefore, the Court shall only grant a partial extension of the requested modification to the non-expert discovery deadline at this time. The parties may renew their request for a modification to the scheduling order after meeting and conferring on the aforementioned discovery dispute. If the parties resolve the discovery dispute independently, they may file a renewed request for modification of the scheduling order prior to January 10, 2020, otherwise it may be filed concurrently with the renewed request for in camera review on or after January 10, 2020. The parties may also contact the Courtroom Deputy, Mamie Hernandez, at (559) 499-5672, to schedule an informal conference to discuss the discovery dispute and further modification of the scheduling order.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.