EVANS et al v. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. et al

Filing 73

ORDER re 72 Joint Discovery Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/12/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
EVANS ET AL,

12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. C-11-01078 DMR
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

v.

14

LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. ET AL,

15

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

On July 15, 2011, the parties submitted a joint report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

18

Procedure 26(f) in which they proposed an October 20, 2011 deadline for completing “Phase 1”

19

discovery, which they agreed would “pertain solely to the issue of whether a class should be

20

certified.” [Docket No. 57 at 6.] On August 8, 2011, the court entered a Case Management Order

21

adopting certain deadlines in the parties’ July 15 joint report, including the October 20, 2011 Phase

22

1 discovery deadline. Thereafter, on October 19, 2011, the parties submitted a stipulated proposed

23

order to extend the October 20 “fact discovery cutoff solely for the purpose of scheduling and

24

taking” three to four depositions [Docket No. 65], which the court entered on October 20, 2011. On

25

January 6, 2012, the parties submitted a joint letter regarding their dispute regarding discovery

26

which Plaintiffs assert is relevant to issues pertaining to class certification. [Docket No. 72.]

27

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, requests for admission, and

28

requests for production.

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, where the court has set a deadline for fact discovery, “no

2

motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off.”

3

Accordingly, “[c]ounsel should initiate discovery requests and notice depositions sufficiently in

4

advance of the cut-off date to comply with this local rule.” Commentary to N.D. Civ. L.R. 37-3. To

5

the extent that Plaintiffs seek an order compelling further responses to Phase 1 discovery, which

6

closed on October 20, 2011, the court concludes that the joint discovery letter is untimely. To the

7

extent that Plaintiffs seek an order compelling further responses to Phase 2 discovery, such a request

8

is premature. Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling further responses to discovery is therefore

9

DENIED.

I

Dated: January 12, 2012

u

a M. Ry

15

United States Magistrate Judge

H

ER

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

N

LI

ge Donn
JudRYU
DONNA M.

A

14

FO

13

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

R NIA

S
UNIT
ED

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

United States District Court

11

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C