Perez et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 152

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 151 Discovery Letter Brief (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MONIQUE PEREZ, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00989-PJH (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER TERMINATING 2/8/16 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

9
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 151

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On February 8, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Defendants seek to compel

13
14

supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ individual responses to Defendants’ requests for admission.

15

(Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 151 at 2.) As drafted, the letter does not identify which requests for

16

admission are at issue nor is it formatted in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution of these

17

disputes. Furthermore, the joint letter addresses all of the plaintiffs’ separate responses to RFAs,

18

such that each set should be addressed in a separate joint letter.

19

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter and orders the parties to meet

20

and confer1 and are discouraged from filing any further joint letters on matters that should easily

21

be resolved without court intervention.
Should the parties have any other remaining disputes that cannot be resolved informally,

22
23

they shall file a separate, joint letter for each set of responses from each Plaintiff, not to exceed

24

five double-spaced pages. (General Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶

25

13.) The letters shall clearly identify which requests are still at issue and be in the following

26
1

27
28

It should be noted that only Defendant’s custodian of records is likely to be able to attest to its
records as “true and correct copies” of Plaintiffs’ time entries. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs
cannot be expected to “vouch for voluminous time entries of which they are not custodians.” (See
Joint Letter at 3.)

1
2
3
4
5

format to ensure that the parties are addressing the same disputes:
A. Request for Admission No. 7
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s position outlining why Plaintiff’s response is deficient and

6

the relief requested.]

7

Plaintiff’s Position

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

[Plaintiff’s rationale as to why she has fully responded to the request, etc.]
B. Request for Admission No. 12
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s position outlining why Plaintiff’s response is deficient and

13

the relief requested.]

14

Plaintiff’s Position

15

[Plaintiff’s rationale as to why she has fully responded to the request, etc.]

16

(See General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties should attach the propounded

17

discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to each joint discovery letter. The parties need

18

not attach correspondence. All exhibits should be tabbed and physically attached to the

19

corresponding letter with a staple or brads.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2