Filed: Aug. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2019
Summary: INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA Re: Dkt. No. 107 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff directPacket Research, Inc. ("directPacket") moves for an order compelling non-parties Visual Systems Group, Inc. ("VSGi") and Audio Fidelity Communications Corporation d/b/a the Whitlock Group, Inc. ("Whitlock") to comply with a subpoena. Dkt. No. 107. That motion has been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Dkt. No. 187. In their opposition
Summary: INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA Re: Dkt. No. 107 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff directPacket Research, Inc. ("directPacket") moves for an order compelling non-parties Visual Systems Group, Inc. ("VSGi") and Audio Fidelity Communications Corporation d/b/a the Whitlock Group, Inc. ("Whitlock") to comply with a subpoena. Dkt. No. 107. That motion has been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Dkt. No. 187. In their opposition ..
More
INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 107
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff directPacket Research, Inc. ("directPacket") moves for an order compelling non-parties Visual Systems Group, Inc. ("VSGi") and Audio Fidelity Communications Corporation d/b/a the Whitlock Group, Inc. ("Whitlock") to comply with a subpoena. Dkt. No. 107. That motion has been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Dkt. No. 187.
In their opposition brief, VSGi and Whitlock state that they have agreed to produce documents responsive to Document Requests Nos. 1-4, 6-9 and 11. Dkt. No. 122 at 4. In view of this representation, the Court requests an update on the status of the parties' discovery dispute.
By September 13, 2019, directPacket, VSGi and Whitlock shall file a joint letter that identifies any issues that have been resolved, as well as all those that remain in dispute. For any matters that remain in dispute, directPacket, VSGi and Whitlock should briefly state whether their respective positions have changed from those stated in the prior briefing, and if so, what those new positions are, including citation to applicable legal authority. However, the Court emphasizes that the purpose of the joint letter is to provide an update on the current status of the present discovery matter. To that end, the joint letter shall not repeat any argument or append any exhibits that were already included in the prior briefing.
This particular discovery dispute having been filed before this action was transferred to this district, this Court will not require the parties to participate in the conference between lead counsel, as ordinarily would be required by the undersigned's Standing Order for Civil Cases1 (although a further conference of counsel may be productive). However, the joint letter shall comply in all other respects with the discovery dispute resolution procedures outlined in that Standing Order.
The Court sets a hearing on this discovery matter for September 24, 2019, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
