JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James et al

Filing 140

Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman denying 139 Motion for Discovery. The Parties are ORDERED to meet and confer, in person, no later than Monday, November 18, 2019, in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the 7 disputes presented in Plaintiff's letter brief. Thereafter, if any issues remain in dispute, the Parties are ORDERED to file a compliant joint letter brief no later than 12:00 pm on Tuesday, November 19, 2019. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

JW GAMING DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 18-cv-02669-WHO (RMI)
ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 139
ANGELA JAMES, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Currently pending before the court is a document entitled, “Statement re Discovery

15

(Separate),” through which Plaintiff presents 7 discovery disputes. Letter Br. (dkt. 139). The

16

disputes are related to a variety of issues including the adequacy of responses to interrogatories,

17

document requests, and requests for admission, as well as issues concerning deposition requests

18

and the propriety of a third-party subpoena. See generally id. at 1-18. Plaintiff represents that

19

Defendants refused to participate in the Letter Brief and that unilateral filing was warranted by the

20

fact that these disputes “have been long festering,” and “because of the imminence of other

21

issues,” as well as the contention that Defendants’ “seemingly shifting positions . . . appears to be

22

an effort to thwart the filing of this statement.” Id. at 1 n.1.

23

Section 13 of the undersigned’s General Standing Order governs discovery disputes and

24

provides that they are to be presented in a jointly-filed letter brief, not to exceed 5 pages.

25

Plaintiff’s unilaterally-filed letter brief of 18 pages does not comply with either of these

26

requirements. Further, §13(b) of the General Standing Order provides that in the event that a

27

moving party is unable to obtain the opposing party’s portion of a joint letter, the moving party

28

shall file a written request for a telephone conference with the court such that the court may

1

enforce the procedures described in the General Standing Order or fashion an alternative

2

procedure. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a unilateral discovery letter brief that exceeds the page

3

limitations several times over. The court will remind the Parties that they should file discovery

4

motions “only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” Cardoza v.

5

Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting In re Convergent

6

Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985)) (emphasis added).

7

With that in mind, Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 139) is DENIED, the Parties are ORDERED to

8

meet and confer, in person, no later than Monday, November 18, 2019, in a good faith effort to

9

resolve or narrow the 7 disputes presented in Plaintiff’s letter brief. Thereafter, if any issues
remain in dispute, the Parties are ORDERED to file a joint letter brief that complies with the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

requirements set forth in Section 13 of the General Standing Order no later than 12:00 pm on

12

Tuesday, November 19, 2019.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: November 12, 2019

15
16
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2