Rulo v. Ricoh Americas Corporation, et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley directing Defendants to respond to 24 Plaintiff's submission regarding discovery dispute. (jsclc1 COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
PATRICK RULO,

7

Case No. 15-cv-00736-HSG (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Defendants.

12
Plaintiff Patrick Rulo (“Plaintiff”) brings this wrongful termination action against his

13
14

former employer, Defendants Ricoh Americas Corp., as well as Ricoh USA, Inc. and a number of

15

Doe Defendants. This action has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution

16

of discovery disputes. (Dkt. No. 26.) Now pending before the Court is discovery dispute

17

pertaining to (1) Defendants’ boilerplate objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests; (2) whether

18

Plaintiff waived objections to Defendants’ written discovery requests, (3) the scheduling of

19

Plaintiff’s deposition, and (4) the parties’ Stipulation for ADR Conference—namely, the type of

20

ADR requested. 1 (Dkt. No. 24.) The parties did not submit a complete joint letter brief

21

addressing all of these issues; instead, Plaintiff submitted a declaration along with a copy of the

22

latest draft of the parties’ joint letter brief that addressed only the second and third issues above.

23

(Dkt. No. 24 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 24-1.) Although Defendants’ perspective is reflected at least in part in

24

the draft joint letter brief, because Plaintiff ultimately submitted the discovery dispute to the Court

25

unilaterally, the Court will provide Defendants an opportunity to respond. Defendants shall

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also raised the issue of the need for a Stipulated Protective Order, but the district court
entered the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order shortly after Plaintiff filed her declaration
describing the discovery dispute. (Dkt. No. 25.)

1

submit a brief response to the issues Plaintiff raised by close of business on Friday, October 23,

2

2015. For all future discovery disputes, the parties must comply with all provisions of the Court’s

3

Standing Order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2015

6
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2