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

Filing 193

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 78 85 discovery motions as premature and denying 81 88 related administrative motions as moot. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Nathalie Thuy Van at 1037 N. Abbott Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95035. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015) Modified on 12/11/2015 (hrllc1, COURT STAFF).

E-Filed 12/11/15

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)
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY
MOTIONS

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

Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 81, 85, 88

Defendants.

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. Van filed

14

two discovery motions and two related administrative motions before the presiding district judge.

15

The district judge referred those motions to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 106. Van moves the court

16

to order the removal of “Confidential” designations Defendants have applied to certain documents,

17

Dkt. No. 85, and to order the production of a signed document that verifies any produced materials

18

are true and correct to the best of defense counsel’s knowledge, Dkt. No. 78. The administrative

19

motions requested that arguments on the substantive motions be held during a then-pending case

20

management conference, but the district judge referred these four motions to the undersigned

21

during that case management conference and Van did not notice new hearing dates for the

22

substantive motions. Dkt. No. 81; Dkt. No. 88.

23

Van subsequently raised her substantive concerns with the undersigned twice: first in a

24

hearing on whether the undersigned should issue a protective order and second in another

25

administrative motion. Dkt. No. 161; Dkt. No. 167. The undersigned explained to Van during the

26

hearing that a protective order would set the procedures for how the parties may challenge

27

confidentiality designations and that she would be able to seek relief through those procedures

28

after the court issued a protective order. Dkt. No. 163 at 2. Similarly, the order on Van’s

1

subsequent administrative motion directed Van to resolve outstanding discovery disputes through

2

the process described in the undersigned’s standing order regarding civil discovery disputes. Dkt.

3

No. 167 at 2-3. The court also noted new information that tends to suggest Defendants have

4

already addressed some of Van’s concerns. Dkt. No. 167 at 2. The court therefore denies Van’s

5

discovery motions as premature and denies the related administrative motions as moot.
Conclusion

6
7

The discovery motions are denied as premature. The related administrative motions are

8

denied as moot. This order does not rule on the merits of Van’s substantive motions and it does

9

not prevent Van from filing discovery dispute reports according to the procedures in the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

undersigned’s standing order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/11/15

13
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2