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)

Download PDF
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?