Kalani v. Starbucks Corporation et al
Filing
12
ORDER RE 9 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL ORDER 56. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 20, 2013. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ROBERT KALANI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington )
Corporation, dba STARBUCKS COFFEE;
)
BRENTINA, LLC, a California Limited
)
Company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: C 13-CV-00734 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO
COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL
ORDER 56
(Re: Docket No. 9)
18
On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff Robert Kalani (“Kalani”) filed a motion to compel Defendant
19
Brentina, LLC (“Brentina”) to comply with General Order 56, which requires parties in cases
20
arising under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to serve initial disclosures
21
seven days prior to site inspection. Although site inspection took place on June 4, 2013, Kalani
22
claims that to this date Brentina has not served any initial disclosures.
23
Although Kalani’s request is styled as an administrative motion, his motion to compel is
24
anything but. Civil Local Rule 7-11 is reserved for “miscellaneous administrative matters, not
25
otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned
26
27
judge,” including but not limited to “motions to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations or
motions to file documents under seal.” A motion for administrative relief “is not the appropriate
28
1
Case No.: C 13-00734 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
vehicle for resolution of the substantive arguments raised by the parties.”1 A motion to compel is a
2
substantive issue not suitable for filing under the shortened time and briefing requirements of Civil
3
Local Rule 7-11.2
4
Despite this procedural violation, considering the relatively simple nature of this dispute
5
and in the interest of efficiency, Brentina is ordered to file a response explaining whether it has
6
complied with General Order 56 no later than June 26, 2013.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: June 20, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
Hess v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., Case No. 06-0572 PJH, 2006 WL 2092068, at *1
(N.D. Cal. July 26, 2006).
27
2
28
See Civ. L.R. 7-11 (limiting motions and oppositions to five pages each and requiring oppositions
to be filed no later than four days after the filing of the motion).
2
Case No.: C 13-00734 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?