Wilson v. Conair Corporation

Filing 76

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Provide Supplemental Information on Ex Parte Request to Modify the Discovery Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/2/2015. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION ON EX PARTE REQUEST
TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY ORDER

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
CONAIR CORPORATION,

(ECF Nos. 74, 75)

15
Defendant.

DEADLINE: November 4, 2015 at noon

16
17
18

On October 8, 2015, this Court conducted an informal discovery dispute teleconference

19 with the parties. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff was ordered to provide Defendant with a succinct
20 description of the materials sought through discovery on or before October 15, 2015. (ECF No.
21 73.) If the parties were unable to resolve the dispute, Plaintiff was to request an informal
22 telephonic conference on or before September 29, 2015. (ECF No. 73.) On September 29, 2015,
23 Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to modify the October 8, 2015 order. (ECF No. 74.)
24 Defendant filed an opposition to the application on October 30, 2015. (ECF No. 75.)
25

In the ex parte application, Plaintiff states that she provided Defendant with a succinct

26 description of the materials sought through discovery in compliance with the Court’s order.
27 Defendant replies that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order, but served further
28 discovery requests.

1

Defendant has provided the Court with the additional discovery requests which were

1

2 served on October 15, 2015. In the October 8, 2015 order, Plaintiff was to provide Defendant
3 with a succinct description of the materials sought through discovery, not to serve a new set of
4 discovery requests on Defendant. If Plaintiff chose to serve a new request for discovery, then
5 pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant has thirty days to respond and the
6 October 8, 2015 order is moot. Any motion to compel would be premature prior to Defendant’s
7 deadline to respond to the discovery requests.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before noon on November 4, 2015,

8

9 Plaintiff shall inform the Court if the discovery requests served on October 15, 2015 were the
10 succinct description of the materials sought through discovery, and if not, Plaintiff shall provide
11 the Court with the list of materials sought that was provided to Defendant.
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated:

November 2, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2