Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

RITA C HO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH (TSH)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 74

On January 10, 2019, Judge Hamilton issued an order referring “all further discovery” to 

the undersigned. ECF No. 70. On January 11, 2019, the Court issued an order stating that “[f]or 

any further discovery disputes, the parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Discovery 

Standing Order . . .” ECF No. 71. That standing order provides that “[u]pon referral from a 

District Judge . . . no motions to compel shall be considered. Instead, the parties must meet and 

confer.” (emphasis original). “If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a 

good faith effort, including meet and confer efforts by lead counsel, the parties have two options.” 

The first, if the dispute is straightforward, is a telephonic conference call with the Court. The 

second, for more complex disputes, is a joint letter brief of not more than five pages.

On January 21, 2019, Plaintiff Rita C. Ho filed a motion to compel in violation of the 

Court’s Standing Order. ECF No. 74. The Court DENIES the motion to compel WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to the submission of a joint discovery letter brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 75 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 1