Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 50 Discovery Letter Brief re: Definitions in light of 55 . (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2016)

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
v.
9
10

NUTIVA, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER TERMINATING 9/16/16 JOINT
LETTER REGARDING DEFINITION
NOS. 7 & 8 IN LIGHT OF DISTRICT
COURT'S 9/22/16 RULING
Re: Dkt. No. 50

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On September 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding “whether

12
13

discovery properly includes information only about the Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil that plaintiff

14

purchased, or also should include information about Nutiva’s Extra Virgin and Refined Coconut

15

Oils, based on plaintiff also seeking to represent purchasers of those products.” (Joint Letter, Dkt.

16

No. 50 at 2.) The letter also addressed whether Plaintiff’s definition of “Nutiva Coconut Oil

17

Claims” could include challenged statements on Nutiva’s website considering that Plaintiff never

18

accessed the website himself. (Joint Letter at 3.) At the time of filing, both issues were pending

19

before the district court. Indeed, Defendant acknowledged that its discovery position was the

20

same position it advocated in the fully briefed motion for judgment on the pleadings, and, that

21

should the district court find in Plaintiff’s favor, it would provide information related to all

22

products. (Joint Letter at 4.) On September 22, 2016, the district court granted in part and denied

23

in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which appears to resolve the pending

24

disputes in their entirety. Notwithstanding, to the extent that certain challenged statements were

25

not contained in the Complaint, Defendant need not respond. Thus, Defendant need not

26

supplement its responses to address subparts (l) through (q).

27

///

28

///

1

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the joint letter. Should the parties believe that any

2

disputes contained therein remain unresolved, they are ordered to meet and confer in an effort to

3

resolve those disputes informally before seeking further court intervention.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2