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)
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?