Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Case No. 3:15-cv-05673-TEH (KAW)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO FILE A UNILATERAL
Re: Dkt. No. 48
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker filed a request to file unilateral letters
regarding her unidentified “discovery disputes.” (Dkt. No. 48.) The Court notes that the fact
discovery cut-off was April 3, 2017, so April 10, 2017 was the last date a discovery dispute could
be timely filed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 (“Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and
expert discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact
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
the discovery cut-off before the presiding judge.2 Should the district court extend the deadline to
complete fact discovery, the parties may then file joint letters, in accordance with the
undersigned’s standing order, so long as the extension includes the discovery devices at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2017
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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.)
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?