Alsabur v. Autozone, Inc.
Filing
67
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordering the parties to further meet and confer regarding 57 Discovery Letter Brief and to file another joint letter within 14 days of this order if they are unable to resolve their dispute informally. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOWHAR ALSABUR,
Case No. 13-cv-01689-KAW
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER REGARDING 5/27/2014 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER CONCERNING
INTERROGATORIES
v.
9
10
AUTOZONE, INC.,
Dkt. No. 57
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On May 27, 2014, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant Autozone,
14
Inc.’s allegedly deficient responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 24. (Joint
15
Letter, Dkt. No. 57 at 2.) Defendant, however, contends that the parties did not sufficiently meet
16
and confer before filing the joint letter. (Joint Letter at 1.) Plaintiff contends that the parties had
17
an “in person discussion regarding discovery disputes occurred on May 15, 2014 during a recess
18
of the 30(b)(6) deposition.” Id.
19
An in person discussion regarding other discovery disputes does not mean that the parties
20
sufficiently met and conferred on the special interrogatories at issue before filing a joint discovery
21
letter. Further, the parties filed this letter untimely, as the Court’s Standing Order requires that a
22
joint letter be filed within five days of the meet and confer regarding the particular discovery
23
dispute. (See Judge Westmore’s Standing Order ¶ 12.)
24
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding the remaining
25
Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 27, and to file a joint letter within 14 days of this order if
26
they are unable to resolve their dispute informally. The letter must be in the following format to
27
ensure that the parties are addressing the same discovery device, and are doing so in a manner that
28
facilitates the Court’s resolution of the remaining disputes:
1
A. Special Interrogatory No. 13
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the interrogatory.]
2
3
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and
4
5
the relief requested.]
6
Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it fully responded to the interrogatory,
7
8
etc.]
9
B. Special Interrogatory No. 24
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the interrogatory.]
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and
12
13
the relief requested.]
14
Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it fully responded to the interrogatory,
15
16
etc.]
17
18
Additionally, the parties must explain why the Court should not terminate this discovery
19
dispute for failure to file the joint letter within five days of the purported in person meet and
20
confer that occurred on May 15, 2014.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: June 17, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?