Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04713/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04713-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:605 Communications Act of 1994

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARTON GERSTEL,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04713-YGR (DMR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

UNILATERAL DISCOVERY LETTER 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 28

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and 

NagraStar LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a unilateral discovery letter brief moving the court 

to compel Defendant Barton Gerstel, currently proceeding pro se, to respond to Plaintiffs’ First 

Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production, and to provide his initial 

disclosures required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C). Pls.’ Unilateral Discovery 

Letter [Docket No. 28]. 

On July 20, 2016, the court ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs’ unilateral 

discovery letter by July 29, 2016. July 20, 2016 Order to File Response [Docket No. 29]. The 

court also referred Defendant to the court’s resources for pro se litigants. Id. Defendant did not 

file a response to the Plaintiffs’ unilateral discovery letter. 

On August 2, 2016, the court again ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs’ 

unilateral discovery letter, and ordered Defendant to explain why he should not be sanctioned for 

his failure to respond to the court’s July 20, 2016 Order. [Docket No. 30]. The court warned 

Defendant that if he did not respond or otherwise oppose the motion, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

may be granted and Defendant may also be sanctioned for failing to comply with the court’s order. 

Id.

On August 9, 2016, Defendant filed a response to the court’s order to show cause. Def.’s 

Case 4:15-cv-04713-YGR Document 32 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Response [Docket No. 31]. Defendant explained that he provided discovery responses to 

Plaintiffs’ attorney, Timothy Frank, before July 29, 2016 and did not understand that he was 

supposed to respond to the court’s order. Id. at ECF 6. Defendant also included his responses to 

the Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents. Id. at ECF 3-6. 

Because it appears that Defendant is willing and able to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery 

requests, and has in fact provided some discovery responses, the court denies Plaintiffs’ unilateral 

discovery letter and orders the parties to immediately meet and confer for a deadline for Defendant 

to complete his responses to any outstanding discovery requests. Because it is unclear whether 

Defendant has provided his initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C), 

the parties are also ordered to meet and confer about a deadline for Defendant to produce his 

initial disclosures.

Plaintiffs’ unilateral discovery letter seeking to compel discovery responses is denied

without prejudice to Plaintiffs bringing a subsequent request to compel responses or for further 

responses. 

The parties are immediately ordered to meet and confer to set a deadline for Defendant to 

respond to any outstanding discovery requests and for Defendant to make his initial disclosures. 

The August 2, 2016 Order to Show Cause issued to Defendant is hereby discharged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04713-YGR Document 32 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2