Swanson v. Alza Corporation

Filing 215

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 208 Discovery Letter Brief; striking 214 Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

JAMES M. SWANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALZA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

10

Case No. 12-cv-04579-PJH (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING 8/20/14 JOINT
LETTER; ORDER STRIKING ALZA’S
9/4/14 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Dkt. Nos. 208 & 214

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On August 20, 2014, the parties submitted their ninth joint letter, and eleventh discovery

14

dispute. (8/20/14 Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 208.) In this joint letter, Defendant ALZA seeks a

15

protective order to postpone discovery, including noticed depositions, until the Court rules on its

16

motion for summary judgment. Id.

17

On September 3, 2014, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend his

18

inventorship contentions. (See Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 212.) Since the September 3rd order, as

19

well as the district court’s June 26, 2014 order limiting discovery, may significantly narrow or

20

resolve the dispute outlined in the August 20, 2014 Joint Letter, the letter is TERMINATED.

21

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding whether there is a need to go forward

22

with any or all of the noticed depositions. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute without

23

court intervention, they shall submit another joint letter. If the parties’ differing interpretations of

24

the district court’s June 26, 2014 order limiting discovery in any way affects the undersigned’s

25

resolution of a subsequent joint letter, the parties must seek clarification from the district court. In

26

an abundance of caution, the undersigned declines to speculate based on the representations of the

27

parties in order to avoid potentially contradicting the district court. Any clarification shall be

28

1

sought and obtained prior to submitting a subsequent joint letter. If that clarification resolves the

2

dispute, the Court trusts that the parties will resolve the dispute informally.

3
4
5

Additionally, the Court strikes ALZA’s Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No.
214), because the Court did not request supplemental briefing.
The parties are directed to review Section 9 of the Northern District’s Guidelines for

6

Professional Conduct regarding discovery, available online at

7

http://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct, prior to filing any further joint letters.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 5, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2