Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Filing 85

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denying without prejudice 84 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

RAJA KANNAN,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

12
13

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE APRIL 19, 2019
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

v.

10
11

Case No.17-cv-07305-EJD (VKD)

Re: Dkt. No. 84

On April 19, 2019, plaintiff Raja Kannan unilaterally filed a discovery letter brief. Dkt.

14

No. 84. This letter brief does not comply with the undersigned’s standing order in multiple

15

respects.

16

First, as is apparent from the caption of the document itself, the discovery letter brief is not

17

a joint submission, despite the purported inclusion of Apple’s position. Dkt. No. 84 at 1, 7–12.

18

Apple’s counsel did not sign the letter. See id. at 13. Mr. Kannan’s letter appears to suggest that

19

he objected to Apple’s revisions to the statement of the dispute and therefore omitted it from his

20

unilateral filing. Id. Mr. Kannan does not explain what—if any—efforts the parties made in

21

attempt to resolve their disagreement concerning the statement of the dispute. Rather, Mr. Kannan

22

seems to have decided that he would rather not wait any longer. As the standing order states,

23
24
25
26
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
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.
Id. The Courts expects all parties to fully participate in the joint discovery letter process. Failure

1

to do so is grounds for sanctions. If a party refuses to participate or unduly delays in the joint

2

discovery letter process, then the opposing party may seek relief from the undersigned’s standing

3

order by filing a motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, and if

4

warranted, the Court may invite that party to make a separate motion for sanctions.

5
6
7

Second, Mr. Kannan’s letter exceeds the word limit set in the Standing Order for Civil
Cases for the statement of his position, which is limited to 1,500 words.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Kannan’s request for relief without

8

prejudice to the parties submitting a joint discovery letter brief that fully complies with the Court’s

9

Standing Order for Civil Cases.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: April 20, 2019

12
13
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

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