Naser v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 68

DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on (67) Discovery Letter Brief in case 5:10-cv-04475-EJD. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)

*E-FILED: November 15, 2012*

1
2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LOAY S. NASER,
Plaintiff,

11

No. C10-04475 EJD (HRL)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
12
13

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.,

14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
In this employment suit plaintiff Loay S. Naser (“Naser”) seeks relief against defendants
16
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Enterprise General Insurance Agency, Inc., and
17
MetLife Securities (collectively “MetLife”) for an array of employment claims. Plaintiff has
18
submitted a series of letters requesting an extension on the deadline for filing a motion to compel
19
over its 4th Request for Production. Plaintiff seeks production of emails from Plaintiff’s computer
20
21

during his employment.
Plaintiff first asked the Court to extend the filing deadline from November 6, 2012 to one

22
week after receipt of the emails. Defendants did not object to this initial request for an extension.
23
24

According to Plaintiff’s first letter (Dkt. 65), Defendants had proposed that they would test search
terms to narrow the production by November 9 (Dkt. 67), and that November 16 would be an

25
appropriate filing deadline. The Court extended the deadline for filing a Discovery Dispute Joint
26
27

Report (“DDJR”) to November 16 on the basis that Defendants were working on production and
that the parties felt that any submission would have been premature if filed by the initial deadline.

28

According to Plaintiff’s most recent letter, submitted at 8:40 p.m. on November 14, he has

1
2

yet to receive any responsive emails (Dkt. 67). Plaintiff asks the Court for another extension to file

3

a motion to compel, and for an extension on the deadline set for filing motions for summary

4

judgment, which is November 23, 2012.

noticed discovery motions, like a motion to compel. See this Court’s “Standing Order re: Civil

7

Discovery Disputes.” 1 The Court is also not in a position to extend deadlines set by the District

8

Court Judge in this Case, such as the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment. The Court

9

does recognize, however, that a discovery dispute has arisen. The Court does not see a reason for

10

For the Northern District of California

As a threshold matter, the parties are reminded that the Court does not entertain formal

6

United States District Court

5

extending the deadline beyond November 16 for submitting a DDJR on this dispute, however. The

11

parties may submit a DDJR on the subject of Plaintiff’s 4th Request for Production, no later than

12

November 16, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 15, 2012

15

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The parties may obtain copies of all of Judge Lloyd’s standing orders from the clerk of the court,
or from Judge Lloyd’s page on the court’s website (www.cand.uscourts.gov).

2

1

C10-04475 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:

2
Barbara Giuffre: [e-mail]
3
Caroline Donelan: [e-mail]
4
Elliot Schlesinger Katz: [e-mail], [e-mail]
5
Ethan G. Zelizer: [e-mail], [e-mail]
6
Richard B. Glickman: [e-mail]
7
8

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3