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