Robinson v. The Chefs' Warehouse
Filing
44
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 43 1/3/17 Discovery Letter Brief and Denying Plaintiff's request to file a motion to compel. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SHAON ROBINSON,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,
Defendant.
ORDER TERMINATING 1/3/17 JOINT
LETTER; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A
MOTION TO COMPEL
Re: Dkt. No. 43
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On January 3, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant’s alleged
14
failure to fully respond to various discovery devices, and Plaintiff requested permission to file a
15
formal motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 43.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to file a motion to
16
compel, as the joint letter process replaces motion practice, because it encourages the parties to
17
substantively meet and confer to narrow the disputes prior to filing, while also ensuring that the
18
parties are addressing the same disputes.
19
All joint letters must comply with the Court’s standing order, including the provision that
20
“a separate joint letter [be filed] for each discovery dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes
21
regarding specific interrogatories and requests for production, they must file two letters).”
22
(Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Here, the instant joint letter
23
does not address the substance of the multiple disputes at issue, and does not provide the
24
undersigned with the information necessary to resolve the disputes.
25
Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter and orders the parties to further
26
meet and confer and file a separate, revised joint letter for each discovery device, not to exceed
27
five pages. The letters shall be in the following format to ensure that the parties are addressing the
28
same issues, and are doing so in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution of the remaining
1
2
3
4
5
disputes:
A. Request for Production No. 7
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and
6
the relief requested.]
7
Defendant’s Position
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]
B. Request for Production No. 12
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and
13
the relief requested.]
14
Defendant’s Position
15
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]
16
17
(See Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties
18
should attach the propounded discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to the joint
19
discovery letter. The parties need not attach correspondence. All exhibits should be tabbed and
20
physically attached to the corresponding letter with a staple or brads.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?