Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 162

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY RELIEF re #157 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Angioscore, Inc.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/30/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 ANGIOSCORE, INC., Plaintiff, Northern District of California United States District Court 11 vs. 12 13 Case No.: 12-CV-3393 YGR ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY RELIEF TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., et al., Defendants. 14 On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff AngioScore Inc. submitted six partial letter briefs. (Dkt. No. 15 16 157, Exs. 1-6.) Each partial letter brief raises a distinct discovery dispute in the nature of a motion to 17 compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). Each letter brief is incomplete in that each 18 contains only Plaintiff's submission, whereas paragraph 8(b) of the undersigned's Standing Order in 19 Civil Cases requires a joint submission. Plaintiff represents that it filed the partial letter briefs "[i]n a 20 good faith effort to comply with both Local Rule 37-3 and the Court's Standing Order and to preserve 21 its rights . . . ." (Dkt. No. 157 at 1.)1 Plaintiffs represent that they have scheduled a meet-and-confer 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Civil Local Rule 37-3 provides, in pertinent part: "Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off, and no motions to compel expert discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the expert discovery cut-off." Here, the Court set separate fact and expert discovery cut-offs. (Dkt. No. 93.) The fact discovery cut-off was January 17, 2014. Accordingly, any motion to compel fact discovery was due January 24, 2014. However, on January 24, 2014, the United States Courts' website suffered a denial of service attack that rendered its electronic case filing (ECF) function inoperative throughout the day. The Court declared a technical failure pursuant to Civil Local Rule 51(e)(5). Plaintiff submitted a compliant declaration pursuant to that Rule. (Dkt. No. 157-7.) Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff to have filed its motions timely for purposes of Civil Local Rule 37-3. 1 with Defendants for the afternoon of January 27, 2014. Plaintiffs further state that they request the 2 Court consider joint briefs filed no later than January 31, 2014. 3 Paragraph 8(b) of the undersigned's Standing Order provides that parties shall seek discovery 4 relief in one letter brief of not more than four pages; that the brief shall be filed jointly; and that the 5 parties shall meet and confer before filing any such letter brief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' partial letter 6 briefs being procedurally and formally defective, the Court DENIES all six. This denial is WITHOUT 7 PREJUDICE to the parties' filing a single joint letter brief of no more than four pages. Any such letter 8 brief shall outline all the discovery issues which still require judicial intervention, consistent with the 9 undersigned's Standing Order. After any such brief is filed, the Court shall determine whether further Northern District of California briefing, a hearing, referral to a magistrate for discovery purposes, or appointment of a discovery 11 United States District Court 10 master at the parties' expense shall be required. 12 This Order terminates Docket No. 157. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: January 30, 2014 __________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?