Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Docket Nos. 267, 268)

The parties have filed letter briefs regarding the current dispute over Plaintiff's request for

additional time to supplement his discovery responses in light of the continuance of the trial date to

July 17, 2006. See Docket Nos. 267, 268. Defendant argues in opposition that Plaintiff is not

relieved of his obligation to produce supplemental responses, and that the documents are needed in

advance of Plaintiff's deposition on June 2, 2006. The Court hereby grants an extension of time by

which Plaintiff shall supplement his responses to May 26, 2006. As Plaintiff has not demonstrated

that his responses are contingent upon receipt of Defendant's discovery responses, the Court denies

his request to set the due date at a future hearing.

Plaintiff has also indicated the possibility of filing a motion to compel. The parties are

reminded that the Court requires in-person meet-and-confer on any discovery disputes. See April

20, 2005 Order Re: Meet and Confer (Docket No. 41). The parties shall submit any further

discovery

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 269 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

disputes by filing a joint letter, as outlined in the April 20, 2005 Order. A template is attached

hereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 269 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 Note for Counsel: The Court may request a courtesy copy of the joint letter to be faxed to

chambers. If so, counsel should still file a copy of the joint letter with the Clerk of the Court. The letter

faxed to chambers is a courtesy copy only. As a general matter, parties may not fax any papers to the

Court without prior leave of the Court.

2

 Note for Counsel: Unnecessary exhibits should not be attached.

3

EXHIBIT 1 -- SAMPLE JOINT LETTER

[Date]

VIA [METHOD]1

Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

U.S. District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: [Case number and case name]

Dear Judge Chen:

The parties have met and conferred regarding several discovery disputes. The meet and

confer took place on [date], with the participation of [Plaintiff’s attorney], representing Plaintiff, and

[Defendant’s attorney], representing Defendant. The meet and confer was [in person or over the

telephone] and lasted approximately [minutes or hours].

I. RESOLVED DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties reached agreement on several discovery disputes. Those agreements are as

follows:

[Description of Agreement No. 1.]

[Description of Agreement No. 2.]

[Description of Agreement No. 3, etc.]

II. REMAINING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

The parties were not able to reach agreement on the remaining discovery disputes. Those

remaining disputes and the parties’ respective positions are provided below. Copies of the relevant

discovery requests and responses are attached as Exhibits [numbers].2

A. [Dispute No. 1]

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 269 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

3

 Note for Counsel: Each party’s position should be stated succinctly (e.g., in one paragraph).

The purpose of the joint letter is to inform the Court of the essence of the dispute in lieu of full briefing.

The Court may order full briefing and/or a hearing if necessary.

4

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]3

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

B. [Dispute No. 2]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

C. [Dispute No. 3]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

D. [Dispute No. 4, etc.]

1. [Position of Party Seeking Discovery]

2. [Position of Party Opposing Discovery]

Sincerely,

[Plaintiff’s counsel] [Defendant’s counsel]

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 269 Filed 05/23/06 Page 4 of 4