Liaw v. United Airlines, Inc., C 19-00396 WHA. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191011g05
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The Court has reviewed defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s discovery letter brief dated October 4 (Dkt. No. 34). United takes issue with plaintiff Theodore Liaw's discovery responses served on September 30 ( id. at 1). Specifically, it contends that Liaw's interrogatory responses are deficient and that he failed to produce any documents. United requests an "expedited" consideration of its discovery letter due to an "i
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The Court has reviewed defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s discovery letter brief dated October 4 (Dkt. No. 34). United takes issue with plaintiff Theodore Liaw's discovery responses served on September 30 ( id. at 1). Specifically, it contends that Liaw's interrogatory responses are deficient and that he failed to produce any documents. United requests an "expedited" consideration of its discovery letter due to an "im..
More
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed defendant United Airlines, Inc.'s discovery letter brief dated October 4 (Dkt. No. 34). United takes issue with plaintiff Theodore Liaw's discovery responses served on September 30 (id. at 1). Specifically, it contends that Liaw's interrogatory responses are deficient and that he failed to produce any documents. United requests an "expedited" consideration of its discovery letter due to an "impending deadline of October 7, 2019 to file a motion to compel in this action" (ibid.). But United does not specify what the motion to compel is related to, how the alleged discovery response deficiencies affect said motion, or even the exact relief it seeks with this letter. Nor did the parties meet and confer before United filed the instant letter (id. at 2). United thus has not sufficiently shown the need for an expedited consideration of the instant letter. Accordingly, United's request is DENIED without prejudice to a future letter brief filed after the parties have met and conferred in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
