Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 222

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re Ex Parte Discovery Letters. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

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 EX PARTE DISCOVERY
LETTERS

9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On July 24, 2015, following a discovery management conference, the court issued an order

13

prohibiting the parties from “fil[ing] ex parte discovery letters without the court’s leave.” [Docket

14

No. 156.] The parties have since violated the court’s order on multiple occasions by filing ex

15

parte discovery letters without prior permission. [See, e.g., Docket Nos. 192, 205, 213, 216, 217,

16

219, 220, 221.]

17

The court takes this opportunity to express its disapproval of the parties’ dismal record

18

regarding their meet and confer efforts. The court will no longer consider any ex parte discovery

19

letter filed without prior approval. If a party wishes to file an ex parte discovery letter, it must first

20

seek leave to do so by filing a one-page motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local

21

Rule 7-11. The parties are forewarned that the court will only grant leave to file an ex parte letter

22

in exceptional circumstances. Any ex parte discovery letter filed without prior approval will be

23

denied without prejudice. The following ex parte letters are denied without prejudice: Docket

24

Nos. 213, 216, 219. Any joint letters regarding the discovery disputes presented in Docket Nos.

25

205 (Defendant Gatti’s motion for a protective order) and 219 (Defendant Almawave USA’s

26

motion to compel) shall be filed by no later than October 5, 2015. All joint letters must comply

27

fully with the court’s Standing Order (see June 18, 2015 Notice of Reference and Order re

28

Discovery Procedures, Docket No. 117).

1

At the July 23, 2015 discovery management conference, following an argument presented

2

by Plaintiff, the court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to limit counsel to in-person,

3

telephonic, and facsimile communications. The court now revisits its ruling sua sponte. Email is

4

a normal, reasonable means of communication. The parties may use email to communicate

5

regarding discovery unless otherwise required to communicate in person or by telephone (i.e.,

6

pursuant to the court’s Standing Order). The court reminds all counsel of their duty to act with

7

professionalism and to refrain from using any form of communication as a method for harassment

8

or oppression of an opposing party.

R NIA

S

I

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu . Ryu
on a M
United Statesn
Judge D Magistrate Judge

FO

H

ER

LI

RT

13

Dated: September 28, 2015

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

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

A

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNIT
ED

10

RT
U
O

9

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C