Netscape Communications Corporation et al v. Federal Insurance Company et al Doc.

60
Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 60 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
United States District Court

12 NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS ) Case No.: C 06-0198 JW (PVT)

CORPORATION, )
13 ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT

14 ) PREJUDICE TO A PROPERLY
v. ) SUPPORTED MOTION
15 )
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et )
16 al., )
)
17 Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
18
19 On September 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, but failed to file copies of the
20 actual discovery requests at issue.1 On October 16, 2006 this court issued an interim order requiring
21 Plaintiff to cure that defect by filing the requests by 9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2006 (the date set for
22 the hearing). Plaintiff failed to comply with that order, instead again filing a document purporting to
23 set forth the requests and responses, and which Plaintiff’s counsel for the first time admitted “differs
24 substantially from the original request and responses.” Based on the papers submitted by the parties,
25 and the file herein,
26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice
27
28 1
The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances
underlying the present motion.
ORDER, page 1

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 5:06-cv-00198-JW Document 60 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 to filing a properly supported motion. Without copies of the original requests, as served on
2 Defendant, there is nothing for this court to compel. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only
3 authorize the court to compel responses to requests that have been served as required by those rules.
4 There is no legal authority for a court to “compel” a party to comply with requests modified pursuant
5 to meet and confer efforts where that party does not agree with the scope of the purportedly agreed to
6 modified language.
7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a properly
8 supported motion to compel. While Plaintiffs’ failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9 has resulted in a waste of time and resource for the parties (as well as this court), any prejudice to
10 Defendant can be addressed through a sanctions award to Defendant for the duplicate motion work
11 in the event Plaintiffs re-file the motion.2
United States District Court

12 Dated: 10/17/06
13
For the Northern District of California

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL
14 United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
If Plaintiffs wonder why they are paying for duplicative motion work for both sides,
Plaintiffs’ counsel should give a copy of this order to their clients.
ORDER, page 2