Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

SHAON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)

ORDER TERMINATING 1/3/17 JOINT 

LETTER; ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A 

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 43

On January 3, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant’s alleged 

failure to fully respond to various discovery devices, and Plaintiff requested permission to file a 

formal motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 43.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to file a motion to 

compel, as the joint letter process replaces motion practice, because it encourages the parties to 

substantively meet and confer to narrow the disputes prior to filing, while also ensuring that the 

parties are addressing the same disputes.

All joint letters must comply with the Court’s standing order, including the provision that 

“a separate joint letter [be filed] for each discovery dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes 

regarding specific interrogatories and requests for production, they must file two letters).” 

(Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Here, the instant joint letter 

does not address the substance of the multiple disputes at issue, and does not provide the 

undersigned with the information necessary to resolve the disputes.

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

meet and confer and file a separate, revised joint letter for each discovery device, not to exceed 

five pages. The letters shall be in the following format to ensure that the parties are addressing the 

same issues, and are doing so in a manner that facilitates the Court’s resolution of the remaining 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 44 Filed 01/05/17 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

disputes:

A. Request for Production No. 7

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Plaintiff’s Position

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

the relief requested.]

Defendant’s Position

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

B. Request for Production No. 12

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Plaintiff’s Position

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

the relief requested.]

Defendant’s Position

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

(See Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ¶ 13.) Additionally, the parties 

should attach the propounded discovery and the applicable responses as exhibits to the 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: January 5, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 44 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2