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)
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?