Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04487/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04487-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE MISSING LINK, INC., dba BATH

PLUS INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EBAY, INC., 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-4487 RMW (PVT)

ORDER FURTHER CONTINUING HEARING

AND SOLICITING JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING 

On October 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery responses. Defendant

opposed the motion, noting that it had already supplemented some of its responses, and would be

providing further supplementation. Plaintiffs’ reply noted that Defendant had not completed its

supplementation. In order to allow Plaintiffs to review Defendant’s supplemental responses, and for

further meet and confer by the parties, the court vacated the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion and set a

deadline for Defendant to complete its supplementation. The court provided that, in the event the

supplementation and further meet and confer did not resolve the discovery dispute, Plaintiffs could

renew their motion on two weeks notice, that Defendant’s opposition would be due one week before

the hearing, and that no reply shall be filed absent leave of court. 

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel. Defendant timely opposed

the motion. After reviewing the papers, on March 2, 2010, the court issued an additional order

Case 5:07-cv-04487-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 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

The federal rules do not authorize courts to compel information or documents per se, 

1

they authorize courts to compel an answer to a specific interrogatory or production of documents in

response to a specific document request. See, FED.R.CIV.PRO. 37(a)(3)(B). Thus, the discussion must

focus on each specific discovery request rather than unmoored categories of information or documents.

ORDER, page 2

soliciting a reply from Plaintiffs, which has now been filed. Based on the moving and opposition

papers, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel is

CONTINUED to 10:00 a.m. on April 2, 2010 (due to the court’s current calendar, this motion is

being specially set on a day other than this court’s normal law and motion calendar).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than March 30, 2010, the parties shall file a joint

supplemental brief. The joint supplemental brief shall be organized by the specific discovery

requests in dispute. Following each discovery request (stated in full), the parties shall set forth the

following: 1) a verbatim reiteration of Defendant’s original objections and response, and any

supplemental response(s); 2) Plaintiffs’ position regarding what responsive information or

documents they contend remain missing; and 3) Defendant’s response. The court anticipates that the

parties will use the process of creating this joint supplemental brief as an opportunity to conduct a

more productive meet and confer process. And for those items the parties cannot resolve, the court

needs briefing that better correlates the parties’ respective arguments with each specific discovery

request in dispute. If arguments apply to more than one discovery request, the parties may reference 1

back to the pertinent portion of the briefing regarding the earliest discussed discovery request (by

page and line numbers) for the repeated portion of the argument. The parties shall endeavor to

address each issue raised by the other side. Toward that end, the parties should exchange multiple

drafts so that they each have an opportunity to revise their own portions of the document to respond

to each point raised by the other side.

Dated: 3/12/2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04487-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2