PARKER v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, 3:15-cv-05673-TEH (KAW). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170417757
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A UNILATERAL JOINT LETTER Re: Dkt. No. 48 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker filed a request to file unilateral letters regarding her unidentified "discovery disputes." (Dkt. No. 48.) The Court notes that the fact discovery cut-off was April 3, 2017, so April 10, 2017 was the last date a discovery dispute could be timely filed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 ("Where the Court has set separate deadlines for f
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A UNILATERAL JOINT LETTER Re: Dkt. No. 48 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker filed a request to file unilateral letters regarding her unidentified "discovery disputes." (Dkt. No. 48.) The Court notes that the fact discovery cut-off was April 3, 2017, so April 10, 2017 was the last date a discovery dispute could be timely filed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 ("Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fa..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A UNILATERAL JOINT LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 48
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker filed a request to file unilateral letters regarding her unidentified "discovery disputes." (Dkt. No. 48.) The Court notes that the fact discovery cut-off was April 3, 2017, so April 10, 2017 was the last date a discovery dispute could be timely filed. See Civil L.R. 37-3 ("Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off. . . .").1 Thus, Plaintiff's request is DENIED as untimely.
The undersigned acknowledges that the parties have briefed Plaintiff's request to extend the discovery cut-off before the presiding judge.2 Should the district court extend the deadline to complete fact discovery, the parties may then file joint letters, in accordance with the undersigned's standing order, so long as the extension includes the discovery devices at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Discovery disputes between the parties, including motions to compel, must be addressed by joint letter rather than by formal discovery motion. (Judge Westmore's Standing Order ¶ 13.) Thus, Civil Local Rule 37-3 applies to joint discovery letters.
2. The Court notes that the briefing also addresses Plaintiff's representation that the 300 pages of documents were not produced until April 3, 2017, while Defendant contends that they were first produced in January. (See Dkt. Nos. 46 & 47.)
Source: Leagle
