Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00989/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00989-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

MONIQUE PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00989-PJH (KAW)

ORDER TERMINATING 2/8/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 151

On February 8, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Defendants seek to compel 

supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ individual responses to Defendants’ requests for admission. 

(Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 151 at 2.) As drafted, the letter does not identify which requests for 

admission are at issue nor is it formatted in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution of these

disputes. Furthermore, the joint letter addresses all of the plaintiffs’ separate responses to RFAs, 

such that each set should be addressed in a separate joint letter.

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the discovery letter and orders the parties to meet 

and confer1and are discouraged from filing any further joint letters on matters that should easily 

be resolved without court intervention. 

Should the parties have any other remaining disputes that cannot be resolved informally, 

they shall file a separate, joint letter for each set of responses from each Plaintiff, not to exceed 

five double-spaced pages. (General Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 

13.) The letters shall clearly identify which requests are still at issue and be in the following 

 

1

It should be noted that only Defendant’s custodian of records is likely to be able to attest to its 

records as “true and correct copies” of Plaintiffs’ time entries. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs

cannot be expected to “vouch for voluminous time entries of which they are not custodians.” (See 

Joint Letter at 3.)

Case 4:14-cv-00989-PJH Document 152 Filed 02/22/16 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

format to ensure that the parties are addressing the same disputes:

A. Request for Admission No. 7

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Defendant’s Position

[Defendant’s position outlining why Plaintiff’s response is deficient and 

the relief requested.]

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s rationale as to why she has fully responded to the request, etc.]

B. Request for Admission No. 12

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Defendant’s Position

[Defendant’s position outlining why Plaintiff’s response is deficient and 

the relief requested.]

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s rationale as to why she has fully responded to the request, etc.]

(See General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties should attach the propounded 

discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to each joint discovery letter. The parties need 

not attach correspondence. All exhibits should be tabbed and physically attached to the 

corresponding letter with a staple or brads.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00989-PJH Document 152 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2