Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

Filing 276

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 274 Joint Discovery Letter. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-02824-JST (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 274

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On August 20, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding whether Defendants

14

should be required to begin production of documents while the presiding judge resolves Plaintiff’s

15

objection to the undersigned’s July 24, 2019 order regarding the scope of discovery. (Discovery

16

Letter, Dkt. No. 274 at 1.) The discovery letter included a 54-page attachment. (See Dkt. No.

17

274-1.)

18

Per the Court’s standing order, “[a]ny attachments shall not exceed 12 pages.”

19

(Westmore Standing Ord. ¶ 14.) Moreover, the parties were previously warned that “the Court

20

may terminate any discovery letter that fails to comply with the Civil Local Rules and the Court’s

21

standing order. If the parties require additional pages, they should request leave of Court.” (Dkt.

22

No. 269 at 2 n.1.)

23

The parties did not request additional pages prior to filing the 54-page attachment.

24

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter. The parties shall file an

25

administrative motion requesting an extension of the page limit prior to filing an overlarge

26

document.

27
28

That said, the Court notes that it is not clear why Defendants are unable to proceed with
certain discovery where there is no dispute. For example, there can be no real dispute that

1

information about Defendant Moas’s December 2016 letter and the May 2017 Clearcutting report

2

is discoverable. (See Dkt. No. 246 at 17-19.) Indeed, Defendants do not suggest that all of

3

Plaintiffs’ requests seek information or documents that are not discoverable. Further, to the extent

4

Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ objection, that pertains to

5

case management, which is in the purview of the presiding judge. The undersigned cannot stay

6

discovery or extend the discovery schedule.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2019
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2