Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02321/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02321-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

KELLY CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW)

ORDER TERMINATING 7/5/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER REGARDING 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 88

On July 5, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter concerning four requests for production of 

documents. (Dkt. No. 88.) As presented, however, the format of the joint letter does not facilitate 

the Court’s ability to fully resolve the dispute, as the parties are not addressing the same issues. 

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the joint letter, and orders the parties to meet and confer 

and file a separate, revised joint letter in the following format should they be unable to informally 

resolve all remaining disputes without court intervention:

A. Request No. 3

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position 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 No. 4

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Case 3:15-cv-02321-EMC Document 91 Filed 07/08/16 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

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is 

deficient and the relief requested.]

Defendant’s Position

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

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) For each request for production, the 

parties should address Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26’s new proportionality requirement. To 

aid the parties in their meet and confer efforts, Defendant’s position that the breadth of 

information required to be furnished would be limited to the six months Plaintiff worked in a nonexempt position or to those in her exact position is unavailing given the size of the putative class. 

Equally untenable, assuming that Defendant’s representations regarding burden are accurate, is 

Plaintiff’s desire to obtain documents pertaining to all 40,000 putative class members in response 

to all disputed requests, particularly Requests Nos. 3 and 4.

Additionally, the parties should again attach the propounded discovery and the applicable 

responses as exhibits to the joint letter. All exhibits should be tabbed and physically attached to 

the corresponding letter with a staple or brads.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02321-EMC Document 91 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2