Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04254/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04254-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SENAH, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

XI'AN FORSTAR S&T CO, LTD,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04254-BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORTS NOS. 2 AND 3

Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, , 91

On June 16, 2015, plaintiff Senah, Inc. filed two Discovery Dispute Joint Reports (DDJRs)

in which it requests orders compelling non-parties DHL USA and Radio Frequency Systems to 

produce documents responsive to subpoenas plaintiff served. The matters are deemed suitable for 

determination without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Plaintiff’s request is denied as to both 

DDJRs.

To begin---and, despite plaintiff’s counsel’s representations to the contrary---neither 

discovery report was filed in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil 

Discovery Disputes (Standing Order). Before filing any DDJRs, this court requires lead counsel 

to meet-and-confer in person to attempt to resolve any disputes. Standing Order, Section 2.C. 

DDJR Nos. 2 and 3 indicate that plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts involved the mere exchange of 

a few emails. Moreover, neither DDJR truly is a “joint” report. Rather, plaintiff drafted the nonparties’ positions for them, invited corrections and comments, and says it got none. In view of 

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 93 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

plaintiff’s representation that the last meet-and-confer email exchange took place on June 15 (i.e., 

one day before the DDJRs were filed), this court harbors serious doubts that the non-parties had 

sufficient time to respond meaningfully to plaintiff’s proposed draft reports. Indeed, it appears 

that plaintiff waited until the very last minute to do anything about the discovery it says it wants

and then rushed to file its reports with the court after discovery closed. The opening sentence of 

the undersigned’s Standing Order states: “The parties and counsel are cautioned not to allow 

discovery disagreements to drag on unresolved until some important looming deadline forces them 

into action.” Standing Order, Section 1. Plaintiff’s apparent delay in seeking court intervention is 

especially questionable since the subpoenas at issue were served on August 28, 2014 and October 

31, 2014.

That leads to the court’s next point: The DDJRs appear to be untimely. Pursuant to this 

district’s Civil Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order, DDJRs may not be filed more than 7 

days after the discovery cutoff. Civ. L.R. 37-3; Standing Order, Section D. The discovery cutoff 

in this case was May 30, 2015. Dkt. 57. May 30 was a Saturday; and, giving plaintiff the benefit 

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), the following Monday, June 1 is treated as the actual discovery cutoff. 

Any DDJRs concerning fact discovery therefore should have been filed no later than June 8. Both 

DDJRs were filed over a week too late. Plaintiff claims that the June 16 filing deadline was set by

stipulation and order, but it directs this court’s attention only to the parties’ stipulation and 

proposed order in which they agreed to that deadline. See Dkt. No. 57. It is not apparent from the 

docket that Judge Freeman entered an order approving that proposed deadline. Nor is there any 

indication in her Case Management Order that she contemplated setting a deadline for filing 

discovery motions different from that set by the court’s Civil Local Rules. See Dkt. 53. Absent a 

court order, and with certain exceptions not applicable here, parties cannot stipulate around 

deadlines for matters that are required to be filed with the court. Civ. L.R. 6-1(b).

Nevertheless, accepting the asserted June 16 deadline for filing DDJRs, this court has read 

and considered both DDJRs on the merits. Even if the other procedural missteps discussed in this 

order were to be excused, this court finds that plaintiff has not met its burden of detailing the basis 

for its contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery and showing how the proportionality 

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 93 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied. Civ. L.R. 37-2. Its requests for an 

order compelling the discovery therefore are denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 93 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5:13-cv-04254-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Anthony Hugo Santucci santuccilaw@gmail.com, thegreat@sbcglobal.net

Charles Christian Correll , Jr ccorrell@kslaw.com, dverduga@kslaw.com, ewang@kslaw.com, 

gmorris@kslaw.com, jsouza@kslaw.com, pbors@kslaw.com, rpada@kslaw.com, 

tjohnson@kslaw.com

George Ruben Morris gmorris@kslaw.com, jsouza@kslaw.com

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 93 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 4