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)

Download PDF
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?