Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al
Filing
271
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 224 Motion for Leave to File; denying 239 Motion for Leave to File; denying 241 Discovery Letter Brief; denying 247 Motion for Leave to File; denying 248 Motion for Leave to File; denying 249 Motion for Leave to File; denying 257 Motion for Leave to File; denying 265 Motion for Leave to File. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015)
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 ON OUTSTANDING
DISCOVERY SUBMISSIONS
9
10
ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The court expects parties to engage in meaningful meet and confer sessions aimed at
13
resolving most if not all discovery disputes without court intervention. In this case, the parties
14
repeatedly have attempted to skirt this hard work by filing ex parte rather than joint discovery
15
letters, and have been admonished for doing so. Most recently, on September 28, 2015, the court
16
ordered that a party must obtain leave of court prior to filing an ex parte discovery letter. The
17
court warned that it would only grant leave “in exceptional circumstances.” [Docket No. 222.]
18
Unfortunately, this only served to provoke a new flurry of submissions, nearly all of which are
19
administrative motions to file ex parte discovery letters or oppositions thereto: Docket Nos. 224,
20
239, 240, 241, 242.
21
On October 7, 2015, the court ordered the parties to lodge copies of audio recordings of all
22
meet and confer sessions regarding the discovery disputes presented in two submissions (Docket
23
Nos. 239 and 241), and to file a log of all discovery-related meet and confer sessions conducted
24
since September 1, 2015. After the October 7, 2015 order, the parties unleashed another torrent of
25
submissions, all of which are administrative motions to file ex parte discovery letters and
26
oppositions thereto: 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 257, 259, 261, 262, 265, 269.
27
28
The recordings and logs reveal that the parties have engaged in very few substantive meet
and confer sessions. The recordings themselves evidence rude and unhelpful conduct (see, e.g.,
1
abrupt hang-up on September 24, 2015 telephone call), and the parties’ failure to actually engage
2
in the necessary work of sorting through the substantive issues and attempting to reach appropriate
3
compromises (see September 22, 2015 telephone call regarding jurisdictional discovery with
4
nominal, half-hearted efforts to meet and confer).
5
The parties’ discovery conduct to date has taken an inordinate amount of court resources.
6
It is undoubtedly wasting the parties’ time and money, all without advancing the litigation. Going
7
forward, the parties shall set a regularly-scheduled weekly appointment to meet and confer
8
regarding discovery. They shall keep a log of such meet and confer sessions. The parties shall
9
also continue to audio record telephonic and in-person meet and confer sessions. The court will
now begin imposing sanctions for the parties’ failure to engage in substantive, good faith meet and
11
confer sessions regarding discovery (including failure to propose or entertain reasonable
12
compromises), and will sanction any party that unreasonably delays the meet and confer process
13
or otherwise impedes the process of resolving discovery disputes. This order is not an invitation
14
to file motions for sanctions for violation of this order; rather, the court is trying to impose a
15
workable structure on the parties’ discovery dispute resolution process, because the parties seem
16
unable or unwilling to do so themselves.
17
Finally, the court finds that the following administrative motions for leave to file ex parte
discovery letters or submissions do not demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” and are therefore
19
DENIED: Docket Nos. 224, 239, 247, 248, 249, 257, 265. Further, while Docket No. 241
20
purports to be a joint letter in compliance with the court’s Standing Order, it is a “joint” letter in
21
name only, since the parties never met and conferred about the issues therein. Accordingly, it is
22
DENIED. The court declines to consider the remaining submissions, all of which are
23
“oppositions” to the motions for leave to file ex parte letters. [See Docket Nos. 240, 242, 250,
24
251, 257, 259, 261, 262, 269.]
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
R NIA
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu a M. Ryu
n
United States Don
Judge Magistrate Judge
FO
ER
H
2
LI
RT
28
D
RDERE
IS SO O
IT
NO
27
Dated: October 16, 2015
A
26
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
18
UNIT
ED
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?