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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?