Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 45 8/10/16 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PRESTON JONES, Case No. 16-cv-00711-HSG (KAW) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TERMINATING 8/10/16 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER v. 9 10 NUTIVA, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 45 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On August 10, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant’s alleged 13 failure to fully respond to various discovery devices. (Dkt. No. 45.) Thereafter, the joint letter and 14 all other discovery in this case were referred to the undersigned. 15 All joint letters must comply with the Court’s standing order, including the provision that 16 “a separate joint letter [be filed] for each discovery dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes 17 regarding specific interrogatories and requests for production, they must file two letters).” 18 (Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Here, the instant joint letter 19 does not address the substance of the multiple disputes at issue, and does not provide the 20 undersigned with the information necessary to resolve the disputes. 21 Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter and orders the parties to further 22 meet and confer and file a separate, revised joint letter for each discovery device, not to exceed 23 five pages. The letters shall be in the following format to ensure that the parties are addressing the 24 same issues, and are doing so in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution of the remaining 25 disputes: 26 27 28 A. Request for Production No. 7 [Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.] Plaintiff’s Position 1 [Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and 2 the relief requested.] 3 Defendant’s Position 4 5 6 7 8 [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 9 the relief requested.] 10 Defendant’s Position United States District Court Northern District of California 11 [Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.] 12 13 (See Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties 14 should attach the propounded discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to the joint 15 discovery letter. The parties need not attach correspondence. All exhibits should be tabbed and 16 physically attached to the corresponding letter with a staple or brads. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2016 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 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?