Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying Plaintiff's 48 4/11/2017 Discovery Letter Brief as untimely. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

DANIELLE PARKER,

7

Plaintiff,
v.

8
9

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

10

Case No. 3:15-cv-05673-TEH (KAW)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO FILE A UNILATERAL
JOINT LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 48

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker filed a request to file unilateral letters

12
13

regarding her unidentified “discovery disputes.” (Dkt. No. 48.) The Court notes that the fact

14

discovery cut-off was April 3, 2017, so April 10, 2017 was the last date a discovery dispute could

15

be timely filed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 (“Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and

16

expert discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact

17

discovery cut-off. . . .”).1 Thus, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED as untimely.
The undersigned acknowledges that the parties have briefed Plaintiff’s request to extend

18
19

the discovery cut-off before the presiding judge.2 Should the district court extend the deadline to

20

complete fact discovery, the parties may then file joint letters, in accordance with the

21

undersigned’s standing order, so long as the extension includes the discovery devices at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: April 14, 2017

24

__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
1

26
27
28

Discovery disputes between the parties, including motions to compel, must be addressed by joint
letter rather than by formal discovery motion. (Judge Westmore’s Standing Order ¶ 13.) Thus,
Civil Local Rule 37-3 applies to joint discovery letters.
2
The Court notes that the briefing also addresses Plaintiff’s representation that the 300 pages of
documents were not produced until April 3, 2017, while Defendant contends that they were first
produced in January. (See Dkt. Nos. 46 & 47.)