Amcor Flexibles, Inc. v. Fresh Express, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER REGARDING AMCOR'S UNILATERAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 2/19/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
AMCOR FLEXIBLES INC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 14-01025 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING AMCOR’S
UNILATERAL DISCOVERY
DISPUTE LETTER DATED
FEBRUARY 17, 2015

v.
13
FRESH EXPRESS INC,
14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

[Re: ECF Nos. 56, 57]

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff Amcor Flexibles, Inc. (“Amcor”) sued Defendant Fresh Express, Inc. (“Fresh Express”)

18

for breach of contract and unlawful and unfair business practices. (See Complaint, ECF No. 1.1) On

19

January 17, 2015, Amcor filed a unilateral discovery dispute letter brief in which Amcor sets forth

20

its argument for compelling Fresh Express to further respond to some of Amcor’s requests for

21

production of documents and interrogatories. (See 2/17/2015 Letter, ECF No. 56.)

22

The undersigned’s standing order sets forth a process for resolving discovery disputes. That

23

process includes a requirement that the parties meet and confer and file a joint discovery dispute

24

letter. The standing order contemplates that it takes only 15 days from the time one party requests a

25

meet-and-confer meeting to the time the parties’ file a joint discovery dispute letter. Amcor says

26

that it has “repeatedly attempted to secure joint participation from Fresh Express but Fresh Express

27
28

1

Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations
are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
C 14-01025 LB
ORDER

1

did not provide its input, despite being given additional time in which to do so.” (Id. at 1.) Amcor

2

does not state when it requested a meet-and-confer meeting, so the court does not know whether this

3

15-day process was completed. In addition, on February 18, 2015, Fresh Express’s counsel filed a

4

letter explaining that he was not able to respond to Amcor’s communications due to a family

5

emergency. (See 2/18/2015 Letter, ECF No. 57.) He requests that Fresh Express have until at least

6

February 27, 2015 to submit its position on the discovery dispute to Amcor. (Id. at 1.)

7

In light of these circumstances, the court grants Fresh Express’s request and denies without

8

prejudice Amcor’s unilateral discovery dispute letter. Unless the parties agree otherwise (which

9

they are free to do), or absent further order of the court (which Fresh Express’s counsel may request

position on the discovery dispute by 12:00 p.m. PST on Monday, March 2, 2015. The parties should

12
For the Northern District of California

if he needs more time due to the family emergency), Fresh Express must provide Amcor with its

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

try to meet and confer by telephone that day or the next. If the dispute remains unresolved, they

13

may file a joint discovery dispute letter on Wednesday, March 2, 2015. The court then will review

14

the letter brief and determine whether formal briefing or future proceedings are necessary. As for

15

Amcor’s concerns about the March 17, 2015 fact discovery deadline, the court does not believe that

16

Amcor should worry about it too much. There is enough time to adjust (if necessary) the discovery

17

deadlines without affecting the June 18, 2015 dispositive motions hearing date, the July 2015

18

pretrial deadlines, and the August 10, 2015 trial date.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 14-01025 LB
ORDER

2