THORNTON STONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendants NO. CV 09-09458 DDP (SSx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed May 04, 2011 Segal, Suzanne H., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL [DOCKET NOS. 46, 48, 51, 53, 56, 66] *1 On April 18, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of electronically stored information (Docket No. 46) and a “renewed” motion to compel the production of documents concerning non-engineering professional employees (Docket No. 48). On April 25, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of internal complaints of age discrimination (Docket No. 51), a motion to compel the production of documents withheld as attorney-client privileged or attorney work product (Docket No. 53), and a motion to compel the production of non-Excel documents in native format (Docket No. 56). The parties filed Joint Stipulations in connection with each of these motions. (Docket Nos. 47, 49, 52, 54, and 57). On April 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents Concerning Non-Engineering Professional Employees” (Docket No. 60) and a “Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Stipulation for Motion to Compel on Lack of Adequate Collection of Electronic Documents” (Docket No. 61). On that same day, Defendants filed supplemental memoranda in opposition to those two motions. (Docket Nos. 62-63). Finally, on May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of documents regarding college and university recruitment (Docket No. 65) and the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (Docket No. 66)(collectively “the Discovery Motions”).[1] On May 3, 2011, the Court held a hearing regarding the Discovery Motions. For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing and for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Discovery Motions without prejudice for failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule (“L.R.”) 37, which pertains to discovery disputes. Additionally, because the parties have demonstrated an inability to engage in a meaningful meet and confer process under the existing Local Rule procedures, the Court ORDERS both parties to comply with the supplemental procedures described in this Order before filing any future discovery motions. Prior to filing a discovery motion, L.R. 37-1 requires that a moving party send a letter to opposing counsel identifying each issue in dispute, stating the moving party’s contentions and points and authorities as to each issue, and specifying the terms of the discovery order to be sought. Subsequently, the parties must hold a “meet and confer.” L.R. 37-1. The purpose of the meet and confer is for the parties to engage in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery requests in dispute without court intervention. See id. (“Prior to the filing of any motion relating to discovery ... counsel for the parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.”) (emphasis added). Although the parties in the present case exchanged hostile emails and appear to have announced some of their respective positions regarding the discovery disputes to one another telephonically, there is no evidence before this Court that the parties truly attempted to reach an understanding or compromise in good faith, as explicitly required by Local Rule 37-1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). *2 The current Discovery Motions raise the type of discovery issues that this Court expects counsel to resolve among themselves, through the meet and confer process. Had the parties truly engaged in a good faith meet and confer, it is very likely that these Discovery Motions could have been avoided. Furthermore, several of the Motions were unnecessarily voluminous and included many exhibits of marginal relevance to the discovery issue in dispute. Finally, the emails, correspondence and briefs associated with these discovery disputes reveal a lack of civility that reflects poorly on the lawyers involved. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to comply with the following procedures to resolve the issues raised by the Discovery Motions. These procedures must also be followed for all future discovery motions in this action. 1) In connection with the pending discovery disputes raised in Plaintiffs’ recent motions, lead counsel shall meet and confer in person on May 10, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of Defendants’ counsel. A court reporter shall transcribe the meeting, with costs to be split equally between both sides. The Court expects the parties to engage in a good faith effort to resolve the disputes. Counsel shall have no other commitments that would interfere with or interrupt the meeting, which shall continue until the parties come to an agreement on each issue in dispute, or reach impasse. If counsel must travel to attend the meeting, counsel shall not make return travel plans that would force an early termination of the meeting. At a minimum, the transcript of the meet and confer should reflect for each issue: a) a statement by the moving party of the issue in dispute; b) a proposed compromise to resolve the dispute by the moving party; c) a counter-proposal for the resolution of the issue by the opposing party, if the moving party’s initial compromise proposal is unacceptable to the opposing party; and d) a response to the counter-proposal by the moving party. This exchange shall continue until a compromise is reached or until the parties, after a sincere and diligent effort, reach an impasse. A copy of the meet and confer transcript must be attached to any future discovery motion and must reflect the exchange of offers described above. If there are any future discovery disputes, counsel shall follow this protocol for their meet and confers. Any discovery motion that is not accompanied by a transcript clearly demonstrating that the parties engaged in a true good faith meet and confer will be denied. All other requirements of Local Rule 37 remain in effect. Any comments or statements by attorneys that are below the standard of professionalism that is expected by the Court may result in the imposition of sanctions on the particular attorney who is responsible. 2) The Court recommends that any future Joint Stipulation not exceed ten pages (five pages per side). It is ORDERED that any future Joint Stipulation shall not exceed twenty pages (ten pages per side) and Supplemental Memoranda shall not exceed five pages. Briefs that are not specifically authorized by Local Rule 37 for filing in connection with a discovery motion will be rejected by the Court. The Court expects the parties to edit and narrow the issues and legal arguments to fit within these limitations. This is not an invitation to split issues and file multiple Joint Stipulations in lieu of a single expansive Joint Stipulation. Instead, the Court seeks the assistance of the attorneys in reducing the number of discovery disputes and in presenting their disputes to the Court in as concise a fashion as possible. 3) All future Joint Stipulations may contain no more than five exhibits per side, including the meet and confer transcript. If a party believes that more than five exhibits are necessary, the party must file those additional exhibits with a declaration that describes each exhibit and states why that exhibit is essential to the resolution of the discovery issue before the Court. A courtesy copy of the declaration with additional exhibits must be delivered to Judge Segal’s chambers and the essential portion of each exhibit must be highlighted in the courtesy copy. *3 The Court cautions the parties that if these discovery procedures are violated in any future discovery motion, the Court will impose monetary sanctions, and may order that the offending counsel and client be held jointly and severally liable for their payment. Additionally, if the Court is presented with persuasive evidence, beyond mere suspicion, that any party is improperly withholding discovery, the Court will consider recommending evidentiary sanctions or an adverse jury instruction. Acceptable evidence of wrongful withholding includes, for example, an email chain in which it is apparent that one or more emails in the chain has been improperly redacted or the testimony of a witness regarding the existence of a document that was not produced. The Court further cautions the parties against taking an impermissibly narrow view of relevance when responding to discovery. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and this “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Ninth Circuit law generally favors a broad scope of discovery. “[W]ide access to relevant facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for truth.” Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 54 F.3d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court advises the parties that before a party files a discovery motion, the parties may contact Judge Segal’s courtroom deputy clerk to request an informal discovery status conference with the Court. Any violation of this Order may subject a party or that party’s attorney to sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court shall refer collectively to the motions and related briefing in Docket Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66 and 67 as the “Discovery Motions.”