Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00657/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00657-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) 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

STARVONA HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 8/19/15 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 20

On August 19, 2015, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant’s alleged 

refusal to produce responses to various discovery devices and produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on 

all noticed topics. (8/19/15 Joint Discovery Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 20.) On August 20, 

2015, the joint letter and all other discovery in this matter were referred to the undersigned.

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 

eight double-spaced 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 disputes:

///

Case 4:15-cv-00657-HSG Document 25 Filed 08/26/15 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

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: August 26, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00657-HSG Document 25 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2