Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC et al
Filing
107
Discovery Order denying requests to compel production. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/27/2014. (jcslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
INGRID & ISABEL, LLC,
Case No. 13-cv-01806-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
DISCOVERY ORDER
9
10
BABY BE MINE, LLC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 91, 106
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On June 24, 2014, the Court received the parties’ Fifth Joint Letter regarding discovery
13
(“Fifth Joint Letter”). Dkt. No. 106. The letter included Defendant’s request that the Court
14
compel Plaintiff to produce documents in response to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 7, 9, 17, 18,
15
20, and 22. Id.
16
The Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings before the United States District Court for the
17
Northern District of California state that “no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7
18
days after the fact discovery cut-off.” Civil L.R. 37-3. This Court’s standing order on discovery disputes
19
disallows “formal discovery motions,” including motions to compel fact discovery, and instead requires
20
parties to discovery disputes to file joint letters describing every issue in dispute, each party’s final
21
substantive position, and final proposed compromise on each issue. Civil Standing Orders for Magistrate
22
Judge Joseph C. Spero, Feb. 10, 2014 at B.8. The Court thus finds that Civil Local Rule 37-3’s prohibition
23
on late motions to compel applies to any filing, including a joint letter, requesting an order compelling
24
production of fact discovery.
25
The cut-off date for fact discovery in this action was April 30, 2014. Dkt. No. 68. The
26
Fifth Joint Letter was filed June 24, 2014, “more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off.”
27
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel production of documents in response to Requests for
28
Production Nos. 5, 7, 9, 17, 18, 20, and 22 is DENIED.
1
On June 17, 2014, the Court received the parties’ Fourth Joint Letter regarding discovery
2
(“Fourth Joint Letter”). Dkt. No. 91. That letter addressed issues remaining from the parties’
3
Second Joint Letter regarding discovery filed May 8, 2014, Dkt. No. 78, and Third Joint Letter
4
regarding discovery filed May 12, 2014. Dkt. No. 82. The Fourth Joint Letter also included
5
Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel Defendant to produce documents in response to Requests
6
for Production Nos. 1, 17, 46, 47, and 48. Dkt. No. 91.
7
The cut-off date for fact discovery in this action was April 30, 2014. Dkt. No. 68. The
Fourth Joint Letter was filed June 17, 2014 and addressed issues remaining from letters filed with
9
the Court May 8 and May 12, 2014. All three letters were filed “more than 7 days after the fact
10
discovery cut-off.” Civil L.R. 37-3; see Civil L.R. 1-5(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). The Fourth Joint
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
Letter, and indeed the Second and Third Joint Letters, are untimely and any motions to compel
12
contained in those letters is DENIED to the extent that the issues have not been resolved by
13
agreement of the parties.
14
In any event, having considered the parties’ arguments in the Fourth Joint Letter, the Court
15
finds no evidence that Defendant has withheld documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for
16
Production Nos. 1 or 17. The Court also finds Defendant’s statement that it has produced at least
17
one of each allegedly “missing” band to be sufficient for Plaintiff to fairly support any argument
18
related to testing or measuring the bands sold by Defendant.
19
20
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel production of documents in response to
Requests for Production Nos. 1, 17, 46, 47, and 48 is DENIED.
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2014
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?