Avocent Huntsville LLC. v. ZPE Systems, Inc.

Filing 78

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 75 , 76 , 77 3/7/18, 3/8/18, 3/12/18 Discovery Letter Briefs. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE, LLC, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. Case No. 3:17-cv-04319-WHO (KAW) ORDER REGARDING 3/7/18, 3/8/18, 3/12/18 DISCOVERY LETTERS Re: Dkt. Nos. 75, 76, 77 ZPE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. 12 13 On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff Avocent Huntsville, LLC filed a unilateral discovery letter 14 regarding Request for Production of Documents No. 39. (Dkt. No. 75.) Plaintiff claims that it has 15 been meeting and conferring with Defendant ZPE Systems, Inc. for months, and sent a draft of the 16 proposed joint letter on February 20, 2018, and followed up with ZPE on February 26, but ZPE 17 never provided its portion of the letter. Id. at 2-3. On March 8, 2018, ZPE filed a response, in 18 which it explained that it had expressed to Avocent that it would be in the best interests of the 19 parties to file the letter concurrently with other joint discovery letters that were forthcoming. (Dkt. 20 No. 76 at 1.) On March 12, 2018, Avocent wrote a response, in which it defended its unilateral 21 filing and addressed the merits of ZPE’s arguments. (Dkt. No. 77.) 22 As an initial matter, the parties did not comply with the undersigned’s standing order, 23 which requires that all discovery letters be jointly filed. Thus, the letters are TERMINATED, and 24 the parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding Request No. 39. Second, pursuant to 25 the undersigned Standing Order, “[t]he parties shall file a separate joint letter for each discovery 26 dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes regarding specific interrogatories and requests for 27 production, they must file two letters).” (Judge Westmore’s Standing Order ¶ 13.) For that reason, 28 depending on the nature of the other discovery disputes, ZPE’s position that the letter should be 1 filed concurrently with other disputes may be untenable. 2 To assist the parties in their meet and confer efforts, and based on a cursory review of the 3 letters, to the extent that ZPE is concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of its proprietary 4 information, the parties have entered into a stipulated protective order, which should ameliorate 5 those concerns. (See Dkt. No. 67.) Further, if the cost of producing a representative product is 6 truly a concern, the parties should meet and confer to come up with a viable solution that works 7 for all parties. 8 Additionally, given the prior dispute regarding the terms of the stipulated protective order coupled with the disclosure that multiple disputes appear to be forthcoming, the Court is 10 concerned that the parties are unable to work together to resolve disputes without court 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 intervention. Most discovery disputes should be resolved without the Court’s involvement. The 12 parties are directed to review the Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct 13 (available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines), which may prove 14 helpful during the parties’ further meet and confer efforts. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 13, 2018 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 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?