Premier Floor Care, Inc. v. Albertsons Companies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-04188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 PREMIER FLOOR CARE, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04188-EMC (RMI) 9 Plaintiff, 10 y. ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE Re: Dkt. No. 57 11 ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., 12 Defendants.

14 Now pending before the court is the Parties’ jointly-filed discovery dispute letter brief (dkt. 3 15 57), which came on for oral argument on February 15, 2024 (dkt. 60). As stated on the record, a 16 || Plaintiff failed to “detail the basis for [its] contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery 3 17 || and show how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied.” 18 See Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 280-81 (N.D. Cal. 2018). In essence, 19 || Plaintiff simply asserted that it has served discovery responses, that it was dissatisfied, and that it 20 || wants an order compelling further responses. See Ltr. Br. (dkt. 57) at 3. As the court explained on 21 || the record, Plaintiff failed to bear its burden of showing why the discovery it seeks is relevant to 22 || any claim or defense underlying this litigation, and why Defendant’s responses were inadequate or 23 || why Defendant’s objections were unjustified. Hence, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 22, 2024 26 Ml Z 27 R@BERT M. ILLMAN 28 United States Magistrate Judge