Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 20 Discovery Letter Brief and ordering the parties to further meet and confer and file a separate, revised joint letter for each discovery device, not to exceed eight double-spaced pages and in the format provided. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STARVONA HARRIS,

Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING 8/19/15 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
9
10

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On August 19, 2015, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant’s alleged

14

refusal to produce responses to various discovery devices and produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on

15

all noticed topics. (8/19/15 Joint Discovery Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 20.) On August 20,

16

2015, the joint letter and all other discovery in this matter were referred to the undersigned.
All joint letters must comply with the Court’s standing order, including the provision that

17
18

“a separate joint letter [be filed] for each discovery dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes

19

regarding specific interrogatories and requests for production, they must file two letters).”

20

(Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Here, the instant joint letter

21

does not address the substance of the multiple disputes at issue, and does not provide the

22

undersigned with the information necessary to resolve the disputes.
Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter and orders the parties to further

23
24

meet and confer and file a separate, revised joint letter for each discovery device, not to exceed

25

eight double-spaced pages. The letters shall be in the following format to ensure that the parties

26

are addressing the same issues, and are doing so in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution

27

of the remaining disputes:

28

///

1
2
3
4

A. Request for Production No. 7
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and

5

the relief requested.]

6

Defendant’s Position

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]
B. Request for Production No. 12
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and

12

the relief requested.]

13

Defendant’s Position

14

[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

15
16

(See Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties

17

should attach the propounded discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to the joint

18

discovery letter. The parties need not attach correspondence. All exhibits should be tabbed and

19

physically attached to the corresponding letter with a staple or brads.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2