Stanislav Petrov v. Alameda County et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 60 Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STANISLAV PETROV,

Case No. 4:16-cv-04323-YGR (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER TERMINATING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
9
10

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On February 28, 2017, the district court clarified its previous order regarding the stay in

14

discovery, deferred ruling on the parties’ requests regarding the production of personnel files, and

15

referred any discovery disputes regarding same to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 61.) Accordingly,

16

the February 24, 2017 joint discovery letter is terminated, and the parties are ordered to meet and

17

confer in an attempt to resolve the pending dispute without court intervention. If those efforts fail

18

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

19

remaining disputes in the format outlined in the Court’s Standing Order:

20
21
22
23

A. Request No. 3
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]
Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

24

deficient and the relief requested.]

25

Defendant’s Position

26
27
28

[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]
B. Request No. 4
[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

1
2

Plaintiff’s Position
[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

3

deficient and the relief requested.]

4

Defendant’s Position

5

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

6
7

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Compliance with the format provided will

8

facilitate the Court’s resolution of any remaining disputes, as the parties will be addressing the

9

same issues. Additionally, for each disputed request, the parties should address Rule 26’s

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

proportionality requirement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2017
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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