Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO (DMR)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE SUPPLEMENTAL 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 67

The parties filed several joint discovery letters in which they each appeared to take extreme 

and unjustified positions. [Docket Nos. 56, 61, and 63.] For this reason, the court ordered the 

parties to engage in further meet and confer sessions to resolve, or at least narrow their disputes. 

The parties were ordered to file a single supplemental discovery letter brief on remaining disputes 

by April 10, 2015. [Docket No. 64.] The parties’ supplemental discovery letter brief states that 

they were unable to reach any agreements. They attempt to revive the disputes by incorporating

the arguments from the original joint discovery letter briefs. [Docket No. 67.] This is improper. 

Joint discovery letters 56, 61, and 63 are no longer pending, and the court will not review them or 

consider the parties’ arguments in those letters. 

The court now orders lead counsel for the parties to appear at the discovery hearing 

scheduled for April 16, 2015. Following the hearing, lead counsel shall meet and confer in the 

courthouse regarding the outstanding discovery disputes, and shall be prepared to devote the entire 

day, if necessary, to resolving them. Any remaining disputes shall be presented to the court in the 

form of a single, standalone joint letter that does not incorporate any previous arguments and does 

not exceed eight pages. Any such letter shall be filed by no later than April 21, 2015. Any party 

that takes a position that is not substantially justified will be subject to Rule 37 sanctions.

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 69 Filed 04/14/15 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 69 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2