Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 188

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 184 Motion for Leave to File. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

E-Filed 12/9/15

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATHALIE THUY VAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-03791-LHK (HRL)

v.
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 184

12

Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van (“Van”), pro se, sues Defendants Language Line Services, Inc.

13

and Language Line, LLC (“Defendants”) for violations of state and federal labor laws.

14

Defendants filed an administrative motion for leave to file a motion for a protective order.

15

Defendants argue a subpoena issued against Providence Equity Partners LLP is invalid for failure

16

to comply with Federal Rules of Local Procedure 45(c)(2) and is overbroad for requesting

17

irrelevant documents that are beyond the scope of permissible discovery.

18

The undersigned ordinarily entertains discovery disputes in the form of discovery dispute

19

joint reports filed by both parties. The undersigned’s standing order regarding civil discovery

20

disputes describes the procedures that parties should use to discuss their disputes face-to-face and,

21

if necessary, to subsequently file discovery dispute joint reports. A party may also file an

22

administrative motion for leave to file a noticed discovery motion, but the undersigned does not

23

favor discovery motions as a means of resolving discovery disputes.

24

Defendants have previewed the substantive arguments they intend to raise if leave to file a

25

discovery motion is granted, but Defendants have made no argument for why it might be

26

appropriate in this instance to circumvent the dispute-resolution process that is ordinarily required

27

by the undersigned’s standing order. Plaintiff recently filed a similar administrative motion that

28

requested leave to file a discovery motion; the court denied that motion and encouraged the parties

1

to collaboratively resolve any outstanding discovery disputes through the procedures described in

2

the undersigned’s standing order. Dkt. No. 167 at 2-3. Likewise, the court denies this motion and,

3

once again, directs the parties to follow the procedures described in the undersigned’s standing

4

order.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/9/15

7
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2