B & R SUPERMARKET, INC. v. VISA, INC., C 16-01150 WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161129e58
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DISPUTES WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has filed two letter briefs purporting to be simple discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 357, 360). Between the two briefs, however, the firm has submitted over a hundred pages of attached materials. Similarly, the response letter submitted by the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP included over fifty pages of attached materials (Dkt. No. 367). This practice is inconsisten
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DISPUTES WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has filed two letter briefs purporting to be simple discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 357, 360). Between the two briefs, however, the firm has submitted over a hundred pages of attached materials. Similarly, the response letter submitted by the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP included over fifty pages of attached materials (Dkt. No. 367). This practice is inconsistent..
More
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DISPUTES
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has filed two letter briefs purporting to be simple discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 357, 360). Between the two briefs, however, the firm has submitted over a hundred pages of attached materials. Similarly, the response letter submitted by the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP included over fifty pages of attached materials (Dkt. No. 367). This practice is inconsistent with the streamlining purpose of letter briefing procedures for discovery disputes.
The hearing on plaintiffs' discovery disputes currently set for November 29 is CANCELLED. Discovery matters in this action are hereby REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to be determined. Counsel for both sides are responsible for timely bringing discovery disputes before the Magistrate Judge so that all such disputes will be resolved, and their resolutions implemented, by the discovery cutoff deadline. The Court is unlikely to grant any deadline extensions on the basis that the Magistrate Judge has not yet ruled on a discovery dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
