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)

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

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Charles Christian Correll , Jr [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
George Ruben Morris

[e-mail], [e-mail]

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