Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 136

ORDER re Discovery Management Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/17/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE DISCOVERY
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties have filed confusing discovery submissions. For example, the parties filed ex

13

parte letter briefs regarding Plaintiff’s subpoena to third party Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

14

(“Orrick”). [Docket Nos. 112, 114.] The court ordered Defendants to address the dispute by filing

15

a regularly noticed motion to quash and/or motion for a protective order. [Docket No. 117.]

16

Defendants have not yet done so, but in the meantime, Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause

17

why a civil contempt citation should not issue against Orrick for failing to respond to the

18

subpoena. [Docket No. 124.] Neither party has explained whether these motions cover the same

19

issue, and if so, why the parties failed to follow the court’s instruction on how to present the

20

dispute for court decision.

21

As a further example, on July 13, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte letter brief regarding a

22

third party subpoena which appears to command compliance in New York, even though Federal

23

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d) provides that “the court for the district where compliance is

24

required” may quash or modify a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). [Docket No. 128.] In its

25

own ex parte response, Plaintiff represents that it filed a motion to compel regarding the same

26

subpoena in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. [Docket No. 133.] Therefore,

27

each party has raised the identical dispute, but in two different fora.

28

These examples, coupled with the parties’ seeming inability to file joint letters, heightened

1

the court’s concern about the quality of the parties’ “meet and confer” efforts. For these reasons,

2

the court scheduled a discovery management conference to address how, when, and where the

3

outstanding discovery disputes will be resolved. The court’s July 15, 2015 order stated that the

4

hearing would be conducted by telephone. However, Plaintiff’s counsel represents that she plans

5

to travel to the Bay Area to appear in person for the hearing. [Docket No. 133 1 n.2.] Since

6

defense counsel is located in the Bay Area, personal appearance for all parties would not be

7

burdensome, and will provide the opportunity for counsel to meet and confer in person under court

8

supervision. Therefore, the court orders lead counsel to personally appear on July 23, 2015 at

9

2:30 p.m. Counsel shall clear their calendars for the afternoon.

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

RT

15

onna M

Judge D

ER

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

A

H

16

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate. Judge
Ryu

FO

14

Dated: July 17, 2015

LI

13

UNIT
ED

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C