Pearson v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 AKAYSIA PEARSON, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05726-CRB (LB)

12 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 44 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The defendants moved to compel a nonparty John Hiserodt’s s compliance with a subpoena 18 issued to him to produce information about a second-opinion autopsy that he performed — at the 19 request of the guardian ad litem for plaintiff N.P — on decedent Coltrane Pearson.1 The trial judge 20 previously referred discovery disputes to the undersigned, and the court gave notice of its 21 discovery-dispute procedures.2 22 For clarity, for the purposes of third-party subpoenas and discovery disputes, the court’s 23 standing order’s instructions to “parties” is meant to refer to the participants in a third-party 24 discovery dispute (even if they are not formal parties to the underlying litigation). The court views 25 the joint-letter-brief process as more efficient than the five-week motion process because parties 26 27 1 Mot. – ECF No. 44. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. ] can (1) talk with each other, see each other’s positions, try to find areas of compromise, and work 2 || out disputes amongst themselves, and (2) narrow, sharpen, and focus the issues they cannot 3 resolve before they present those issues to the court. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 4 || No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB), 2018 WL 2294281, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2018). It usually is 5 faster to file a letter brief. The approach also avoids sanctions because the more streamlined 6 || process usually resolves the disputes without a formal motion to compel. The court hopes that 7 || parties (and third parties) approach the process in good faith. 8 The court directs the parties to engage in that process. Because the defendants describe their 9 || unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute informally, the court does not follow its customary 10 || practice of denying the motion without prejudice in favor of the letter-brief process.* The motion 11 remains on calendar, and the briefing schedule remains in effect. But the court hopes that the 12 || pending motion provides some incentive for the parties to work out the dispute next week. E 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 18, 2022 3 15 Let BC LAUREL BEELER 16 United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || > Mot. — ECF No. 44 at 2.