TysellCrouse, Inc, Inc. v. Sway Management, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/22/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TYSELLCROUSE, INC., Case No. 15-cv-03832-RS Plaintiff, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 12 13 SWAY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 Pursuant to the procedures set out in the Case Management Scheduling order, the parties 17 have submitted a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute, by which plaintiff seeks to compel 18 further responses to certain interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiff asserts it served the 19 discovery requests in issue between July 29, 2016 and August 2, 2016, “in plenty of time to have 20 responses due by the discovery cutoff” of September 2, 2016. Plaintiff acknowledges it received 21 all of defendants’ responses no later than Thursday, September 1st. At that point in time, the 22 deadline for filing a motion to compel was eight days away, Friday, September 9th. See Civil 23 Local Rule 37-3. 24 Plaintiff initiated efforts to meet and confer the following Monday, September 5th, but did 25 not hear back. Sometime later in the week, plaintiff “followed up,” and was advised that defense 26 counsel was not available to discuss the issue until Friday, September 9th, the day any motion to 27 compel had to be filed. There is no indication plaintiff requested any stipulation to extend the 28 deadline. Meet and confer negotiations on Friday the 9th did not resolve all of the disputes. 1 Plaintiff’s counsel states she sent an initial draft of the joint discovery dispute letter to defense 2 counsel “that same day.” Defense counsel asserts it was received around 5:00 p.m. 3 Again, there is no indication that plaintiff sought a stipulation to extend the deadline for 4 moving to compel. Plaintiff did not seek relief from the court. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts she 5 would have submitted the discovery letter to the court by the deadline if she “had not had to rely 6 on Defendants’ counsel approving and providing her own input to the letter.” 7 The fact that the Case Management Order requires parties to present discovery disputes 8 through joint letters does not relieve a party who believes it is entitled to further discovery 9 responses from the obligation to take all necessary steps to meet the deadline set out in Local Rule 37-3. Here, plaintiff had more than a week to engage in meet and confer and either get the letter 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 brief filed, or seek an extension of the deadline by stipulation or application to the Court if it 12 became apparent that it might not be practicable to meet the deadline, as a result of defendants’ 13 communication timing or schedule, or for any other reason. Plaintiff elected not to take 14 appropriate steps, and the letter brief is untimely. No referral of the merits of the discovery 15 dispute to a magistrate judge is warranted. No further discovery responses will be compelled. The 16 associated motion to file under seal is denied as moot, as the materials for which sealing was 17 sought were proffered as relating to the merits of the discovery dispute, not the timeliness issue. 18 Those materials have not been reviewed. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 Dated: September 22, 2016 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 15-cv-03832-RS

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?