Ho v. Pinsukanjana, et al.

Filing 75

Discovery Order re: 74 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests filed by Rita C. Ho, Rita C Ho. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/22/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

RITA C HO,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH (TSH)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On January 10, 2019, Judge Hamilton issued an order referring “all further discovery” to

13

the undersigned. ECF No. 70. On January 11, 2019, the Court issued an order stating that “[f]or

14

any further discovery disputes, the parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Discovery

15

Standing Order . . .” ECF No. 71. That standing order provides that “[u]pon referral from a

16

District Judge . . . no motions to compel shall be considered. Instead, the parties must meet and

17

confer.” (emphasis original). “If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a

18

good faith effort, including meet and confer efforts by lead counsel, the parties have two options.”

19

The first, if the dispute is straightforward, is a telephonic conference call with the Court. The

20

second, for more complex disputes, is a joint letter brief of not more than five pages.

21

On January 21, 2019, Plaintiff Rita C. Ho filed a motion to compel in violation of the

22

Court’s Standing Order. ECF No. 74. The Court DENIES the motion to compel WITHOUT

23

PREJUDICE to the submission of a joint discovery letter brief.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2019

26
27
28

THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge