Senah, Inc v. XI'AN Forstar S&T Co, Ltd

Filing 93

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 90 , 91 Discovery Dispute Joint Report Nos. 2 and 3. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 SENAH, INC, Case No. 5:13-cv-04254-BLF (HRL) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORTS NOS. 2 AND 3 14 15 XI'AN FORSTAR S&T CO, LTD, Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, , 91 Defendant. 16 17 On June 16, 2015, plaintiff Senah, Inc. filed two Discovery Dispute Joint Reports (DDJRs) 18 in which it requests orders compelling non-parties DHL USA and Radio Frequency Systems to 19 produce documents responsive to subpoenas plaintiff served. The matters are deemed suitable for 20 determination without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Plaintiff’s request is denied as to both 21 DDJRs. 22 To begin---and, despite plaintiff’s counsel’s representations to the contrary---neither 23 discovery report was filed in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil 24 Discovery Disputes (Standing Order). Before filing any DDJRs, this court requires lead counsel 25 to meet-and-confer in person to attempt to resolve any disputes. Standing Order, Section 2.C. 26 DDJR Nos. 2 and 3 indicate that plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts involved the mere exchange of 27 a few emails. Moreover, neither DDJR truly is a “joint” report. Rather, plaintiff drafted the non- 28 parties’ positions for them, invited corrections and comments, and says it got none. In view of 1 plaintiff’s representation that the last meet-and-confer email exchange took place on June 15 (i.e., 2 one day before the DDJRs were filed), this court harbors serious doubts that the non-parties had 3 sufficient time to respond meaningfully to plaintiff’s proposed draft reports. Indeed, it appears 4 that plaintiff waited until the very last minute to do anything about the discovery it says it wants 5 and then rushed to file its reports with the court after discovery closed. The opening sentence of 6 the undersigned’s Standing Order states: “The parties and counsel are cautioned not to allow 7 discovery disagreements to drag on unresolved until some important looming deadline forces them 8 into action.” Standing Order, Section 1. Plaintiff’s apparent delay in seeking court intervention is 9 especially questionable since the subpoenas at issue were served on August 28, 2014 and October 10 31, 2014. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 That leads to the court’s next point: The DDJRs appear to be untimely. Pursuant to this 12 district’s Civil Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order, DDJRs may not be filed more than 7 13 days after the discovery cutoff. Civ. L.R. 37-3; Standing Order, Section D. The discovery cutoff 14 in this case was May 30, 2015. Dkt. 57. May 30 was a Saturday; and, giving plaintiff the benefit 15 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), the following Monday, June 1 is treated as the actual discovery cutoff. 16 Any DDJRs concerning fact discovery therefore should have been filed no later than June 8. Both 17 DDJRs were filed over a week too late. Plaintiff claims that the June 16 filing deadline was set by 18 stipulation and order, but it directs this court’s attention only to the parties’ stipulation and 19 proposed order in which they agreed to that deadline. See Dkt. No. 57. It is not apparent from the 20 docket that Judge Freeman entered an order approving that proposed deadline. Nor is there any 21 indication in her Case Management Order that she contemplated setting a deadline for filing 22 discovery motions different from that set by the court’s Civil Local Rules. See Dkt. 53. Absent a 23 court order, and with certain exceptions not applicable here, parties cannot stipulate around 24 deadlines for matters that are required to be filed with the court. Civ. L.R. 6-1(b). 25 Nevertheless, accepting the asserted June 16 deadline for filing DDJRs, this court has read 26 and considered both DDJRs on the merits. Even if the other procedural missteps discussed in this 27 order were to be excused, this court finds that plaintiff has not met its burden of detailing the basis 28 for its contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery and showing how the proportionality 2 1 and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied. Civ. L.R. 37-2. Its requests for an 2 order compelling the discovery therefore are denied. 3 4 SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2015 ________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 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 3 1 2 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to: Anthony Hugo Santucci, 3 4 5 6 Charles Christian Correll , Jr,,,,,,, George Ruben Morris, 7 8 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 4

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?