Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02993-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BIJU PLATHOTTAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-2993 JSW (EMC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

PLAINTIFF’S LETTER OF

SEPTEMBER 15, 2005

(Docket No. 31)

On September 15, 2005, Plaintiff Biju Plathottam filed what he characterized as a joint letter

from both parties regarding a discovery dispute. See Docket No. 31. Several days later, Defendant

Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a letter in response, asserting that the “purported ‘joint’ letter is

untimely, inaccurate, and was sent without defense counsel’s approval or authorization.” Letter

from M. Tsatalis of 9/20/05, at 1. 

More specifically, Juniper claimed that the letter submitted by Mr. Plathottam was originally

prepared in May 2005, that Juniper asked Mr. Plathottam to submit with the letter an exhibit, but

that, for whatever reason, Mr. Plathottam never filed the letter, thus leading Juniper to assume that

he “had decided to drop the discovery issues raised in the letter.” Id. It was not until months later,

on August 31, 2005, that Mr. Plathottam raised the issue of the joint letter. Juniper’s response was

that the fact discovery cut-off had already passed (as of May 13, 2005) and, under the Civil Local

Rules, any discovery motion would be untimely. In spite of this objection, Mr. Plathottam still filed

the joint letter, without informing the Court of the objection. 

Case 3:04-cv-02993-JSW Document 35 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Civil Local Rule 26-2 provides:

Unless otherwise ordered, as used in any order of this Court or in these

Local Rules, a “discovery cut-off” is the date by which all responses to

written discovery are due and by which all depositions must be

concluded. 

Where the Court has set a single discovery cut-off for both fact and

expert discovery, no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than

7 court days after the discovery cut-off.

Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert discovery,

no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 court days

after the fact discovery cut-off, and no motions to compel expert

discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the expert discovery

cut-off.

Discovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the

applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of the

Court for good cause shown. 

Civ. L.R. 26-2.

2

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby orders Mr. Plathottam to explain why he failed to

inform the Court of Juniper’s timeliness objection and to show cause why the Court should not deny

his motion to compel on the basis that it is untimely under Civil Local Rule 26-2.1

 Mr. Plathottam

shall file a response to this order to show cause within a week of the filing date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2005

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02993-JSW Document 35 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2