Melian Labs Inc. v. Triology LLC

Filing 44

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating Plaintiff's 42 Discovery Letter Brief and ordering the parties to further meet and confer and to file a joint discovery letter should they be unable to resolve their disputes informally. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MELIAN LABS INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING JULY 7, 2014
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
9
10

TRIOLOGY LLC,

Dkt. No. 42

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On July 8, 2014, this matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

14

for discovery purposes. The parties are hereby directed to the Court’s General Standing Order,

15

available online at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/kaworders.

16

Plaintiff filed a discovery letter on July 7, 2014. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order,

17

however, all discovery letters must be filed jointly. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s July 7, 2014

18

discovery letter is TERMINATED, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in an attempt to

19

resolve the pending disputes without further court intervention. If those efforts fail to fully resolve

20

all issues of contention, the parties shall jointly write and file a letter outlining any remaining

21

discovery disputes consistent with the Standing Order. The letter must be in the following format

22

to ensure that the parties are addressing the same requests, and are doing so in a manner that

23

facilitates the Court’s resolution of the remaining disputes:

24
25
26
27
28

A. Request for Production No. 7
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and
the relief requested.]

1

Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

2
3

B. Request for Production No. 12
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

4
5

Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response is deficient and

6
7

the relief requested.]

8

Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This format should be used for each dispute, and the parties should attach the propounded
discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to the joint discovery letter.
In the interest of providing the parties with guidance in their meet and confer, the Court

14

reminds the parties that each side has individual discovery obligations, and one party cannot

15

withhold non-privileged, responsive documents because it seeks similar documents from the

16

opposing party. Also, Defendant has a right to respond to any request notwithstanding its

17

objections, so long as it clearly identifies the specific objection(s) applicable to a particular

18

request. It is improper to simply serve objections and refuse to answer notwithstanding those

19

objections. To the extent that certain “responses” only contain objections, Defendant is ordered to

20

answer notwithstanding its objections unless a privilege is asserted and a privilege log is provided.

21

Further, relevancy is a very broad standard, and is rarely an appropriate ground for avoiding a

22

response.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Lastly, the parties have a stipulated protective order in effect, so the Court does not
anticipate entertaining any disputes that should be resolved by the protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 8, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
2