Lopez Tax Service, Inc. et al v. The Income Tax School, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/20/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

LOPEZ TAX SERVICE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: C-12-02654 JSW (JSC)
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

v.

15
16
17

INCOME TAX SCHOOL, INC.,
Defendant.

18
19

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning various discovery

20

issues. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 57.) The letter informs the Court that following the parties’ meet-and-confer,

21

they have “narrowed but have not eliminated the issues.” (Dkt. No. 53 at 1.) However, after

22

reviewing the letter, it appears that most of the issues raised are not ripe for the Court’s review or

23

have been eliminated through the meet-and-confer process. For instance, regarding Plaintiffs’

24

Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the parties relay to the Court their meet-and-confer discussions and

25

then conclude the section as follows: “in the spirit of cooperation, and to insure its full compliance

26

with the business records option under Rule 33(d), ITS will improve on the specificity of its answers

27

by providing Bates numbers in supplemental answers to interrogatories on or before June 19, 2013.”

28

(Id. at 4.) Defendant’s supplemental answers to the interrogatories may satisfy Plaintiffs’ request and

1

the Court accordingly declines to rule on the issue at this time. For those disputes that remain

2

following Defendant’s supplemental production, the parties may file a new joint letter, after meeting

3

and conferring, that addresses only those issues that are actual disputes and ripe for the Court’s

4

consideration.

5

In addition, the parties’ new joint letter, if any, shall clearly identify the parties’ respective

6

positions on the issues and each party’s final proposed compromise. See Civil Standing Orders for

7

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, at 4 (“Issue-by-issue, the joint letter shall describe each

8

unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal authority, and provide each

9

party’s final proposed compromise before addressing the next issue.”). The parties’ current letter fails

Northern District of California

to do this. For example, the letter appears to identify as a potential issue Defendant’s responses to

11
United States District Court

10

Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, which concern Defendant’s claim of lost profits. (Dkt. No. 53

12

at 5-6.) The last sentence discussing the issue provides: “During the meet and confer, ITS stated that

13

it is not seeking actual damages, but will rely on statutory damages and attorneys’ fees where

14

applicable to certain of the allegedly infringed works, and on the infringers’ profits remedy.” (Id. at

15

6.) It is not apparent whether the parties believe this is an issue still in dispute or a matter that the

16

parties have resolved on their own. There is no analysis, only background. More generally, the

17

parties should divide each issue into sections titled “Plaintiffs’ Position” and “Defendant’s Position”

18

so the Court is able to identify the parties’ arguments and their proposed compromises.

19

The Court accordingly denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ requests contained in the joint

20

letter. For issues that remain and are ripe for the Court’s consideration, the parties’ shall file a

21

renewed joint letter that complies with this Court’s standing orders. If either party believe that formal

22

briefing is required, that party shall submit its request for such briefing with the Court.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: June 20, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

2