RHUB Communications, Inc. v. Karon

Filing 81

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 80 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

RHUB COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.16-cv-06669-BLF (VKD)
ORDER RE APRIL 9, 2019
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
ROY KARON, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 80

Defendants.

13

On April 5, 2019, defendant BVS, Inc. (“BVS”) filed a motion to compel plaintiff RHUB

14

Communications, Inc (“RHUB”) to serve an amended response to BVS’s Request for Production

15

No. 3 and to produce all responsive documents. Dkt. No. 78. The Court denied that motion

16

without prejudice and directed the parties to follow the discovery dispute procedure outlined in

17

Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Dkt. No. 79.

18

On April 9, 2019, BVS filed a discovery letter brief. Dkt. No. 80. This letter brief does

19

not comply with the undersigned’s standing order in multiple respects. For this reason, the Court

20

DENIES BVS’ request for relief without prejudice.

21

First, although the letter brief purports to be a “joint discovery letter brief,” it is not, in fact,

22

a joint submission. RHUB’s counsel did not sign the letter, and the letter contains only BVS’s

23

position, not RHUB’s. The standing order requires that the letter include “each party’s position,

24

including citation to applicable authority, and proposed resolution of the dispute.” Standing Order

25

for Civil Cases at 3. BVS’s letter does not explain why RHUB did not participate in the joint

26

discovery letter process. As the standing order states,

27
28

The Court expects the parties to cooperate in the preparation of the
joint discovery letter so that each side has adequate time to prepare its
own arguments and address its adversary’s arguments before

1
2
3

submission of the letter. The joint discovery letter must be signed by
lead counsel. . . . Unjustified delay or refusal to participate
meaningfully in . . . the preparation of the joint discovery letter may
be grounds for entry of an order adverse to the delaying or nonparticipating party or other appropriate sanctions.

4

Id. The Courts expects all parties to fully participate in the joint discovery letter process. Failure

5

to do so is grounds for sanctions. If RHUB refuses to participate in the joint discovery letter

6

process, then BVS may seek relief from the undersigned’s standing order by filing a motion for

7

administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, and if warranted, the Court may invite

8

BVS to make a separate motion for sanctions.

9

Second, BVS’s letter exceeds the word limits set in the Standing Order for Civil Cases for
the statement of the dispute requiring resolution, BVS’s position, and the statement attesting to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

compliance with the requirement that lead counsel confer about the dispute, which are 100 words,

12

1,500 words, and 50 words, respectively.

13

Moreover, it appears from BVS’s letter brief that the discovery dispute to which it refers

14

may be resolved without the Court’s assistance. See Dkt. No. 80 at 5. If the parties are unable to

15

resolve the dispute between themselves by April 12, 2019, they shall submit a joint discovery

16

letter brief that complies with all requirements in the Court’s Standing Order for Civil

17

Cases by April 15, 2019.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2019

20
21
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2