Filed: Jan. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2020
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 241 ROBERT M. ILLMAN , Magistrate Judge . Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 239) and a separate letter brief from Defendant Toshiba American Business Solutions ("TABS") (dkt. 241) requesting the court to strike Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions as noncompliant with a previous order of the court. On December 20, 2019, as it pertained to a number of discovery issues between Plaintiff and TABS, the court ordered (dkt. 237) t
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 241 ROBERT M. ILLMAN , Magistrate Judge . Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 239) and a separate letter brief from Defendant Toshiba American Business Solutions ("TABS") (dkt. 241) requesting the court to strike Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions as noncompliant with a previous order of the court. On December 20, 2019, as it pertained to a number of discovery issues between Plaintiff and TABS, the court ordered (dkt. 237) th..
More
ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 241
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Currently pending before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (dkt. 239) and a separate letter brief from Defendant Toshiba American Business Solutions ("TABS") (dkt. 241) requesting the court to strike Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions as noncompliant with a previous order of the court.
On December 20, 2019, as it pertained to a number of discovery issues between Plaintiff and TABS, the court ordered (dkt. 237) the parties to meet and confer in person in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the disputes, and that if any disputed remained, the Parties were ordered to file a joint letter brief not exceeding 10 pages within fourteen days. Seven days later, on December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pertaining to those discovery disputes. See Pl.'s Mot. (dkt. 239). A few days later, on January 3, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel submitted a separate declaration relating his prior inability to comply with the court's order due to vacation plans, while also noting his return to California the following week, thus becoming available again to meet and confer. See Decl. (dkt. 240) at 4 (". . . I'll go to San Francisco if I have to."). Thereafter, TABS submitted a separate letter brief (dkt. 241) requesting that Plaintiff's motion be stricken and that the Parties be made to meet and confer in person and then to file a joint discovery letter brief as previously ordered. Accordingly, because Plaintiff's Motion (dkt. 241) is non-compliant with the court's previous order in that it is not a jointly-filed letter brief and was not preceded by meeting and conferring in person, the motion is STRICKEN.
Counsel for Plaintiff and TABS are herewith ORDERED to meet and confer in person, in San Francisco, in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the matters at issue. Thereafter, if any issues remain in dispute, Plaintiff and TABS are ORDERED to present those issues in a jointly-filed letter brief not exceeding 10 pages on or before Tuesday, January 14, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
