JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 JW GAMING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-02669-WHO (RMI)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 139 11 ANGELA JAMES, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 Currently pending before the court is a document entitled, “Statement re Discovery 15 (Separate),” through which Plaintiff presents 7 discovery disputes. Letter Br. (dkt. 139). The 16 disputes are related to a variety of issues including the adequacy of responses to interrogatories, 17 document requests, and requests for admission, as well as issues concerning deposition requests 18 and the propriety of a third-party subpoena. See generally id. at 1-18. Plaintiff represents that 19 Defendants refused to participate in the Letter Brief and that unilateral filing was warranted by the 20 fact that these disputes “have been long festering,” and “because of the imminence of other 21 issues,” as well as the contention that Defendants’ “seemingly shifting positions . . . appears to be 22 an effort to thwart the filing of this statement.” Id. at 1 n.1. 23 Section 13 of the undersigned’s General Standing Order governs discovery disputes and 24 provides that they are to be presented in a jointly-filed letter brief, not to exceed 5 pages. 25 Plaintiff’s unilaterally-filed letter brief of 18 pages does not comply with either of these 26 requirements. Further, §13(b) of the General Standing Order provides that in the event that a 27 moving party is unable to obtain the opposing party’s portion of a joint letter, the moving party 1 enforce the procedures described in the General Standing Order or fashion an alternative 2 || procedure. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a unilateral discovery letter brief that exceeds the page 3 limitations several times over. The court will remind the Parties that they should file discovery 4 || motions “only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” Cardoza v. 5 Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting In re Convergent 6 Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985)) (emphasis added). 7 With that in mind, Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 139) is DENIED, the Parties are ORDERED to 8 meet and confer, in person, no later than Monday, November 18, 2019, in a good faith effort to 9 || resolve or narrow the 7 disputes presented in Plaintiffs letter brief. Thereafter, if any issues 10 || remain in dispute, the Parties are ORDERED to file a joint letter brief that complies with the 11 requirements set forth in Section 13 of the General Standing Order no later than 12:00 pm on 12 Tuesday, November 19, 2019. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: November 12, 2019 Mn 16 5 R BERT M. ILLMAN nited States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28