Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JARRITOS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS JARRITOS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-2380 JSW (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER RE

DISCOVERY AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY AND COMMUNICATION

OF SETTLEMENT OFFERS

(Docket Nos. 28, 37)

The parties’ discovery dispute came on for hearing on May 3, 2006. Having considered the

papers filed by the parties and argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court

hereby orders as follows.

The parties must meet and confer in good faith on all discovery disputes. The meet and

confer shall focus on specific matters in dispute (e.g. document request by document request). The

meet and confer efforts thus far fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and

Local Rule 37-1. If a telephone conference does not resolve the differences, counsel shall meet in

person. An exchange of letters and e-mails does not satisfy the meet and confer requirements. Any

future failure to comply with these rules will result in the imposition of sanctions by this Court.

The parties shall meet and confer and resolve the disputes described in their joint letter of

April 5, 2006, taking into account the following observations and directives of the Court.

1. The parties shall use as a template the N.D. Cal. Protective order. However, as to

documents which involve potential privacy rights of third parties (e.g. enforcement letters sent to

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

other businesses), these documents (and any detailed description of their contacts functionally

equivalent to disclosure of the documents themselves) shall be used for litigation purposes only. 

Defense counsel may contact these individuals in the course of this litigation. Should any such

individual consent to disclosure of such documents, thereby eviscerating any privacy right, then the

protective order shall no longer apply to such document.

2. As to document responses, documents are to be produced in a manner consistent with

Federal Rule 34. Moreover, each production shall be accompanied by a declaration stating that if

produced without specific correspondence to particular document request, these are being produced

as they are kept in the ordinary course of business. Moreover, the declaration shall either state that

all documents responsive to the request have been produced or describe the documents which have

been withheld and the basis of the withholding (e.g. documents in Mexico not produced because of

inaccessibility, documents older than 10 years not produced because clearly irrelevant, etc.). If the

responding party believes there are terms in the request which are ambiguous or that the request is

overbroad, it shall immediately call a meet and confer with opposing counsel to reach a clarification

or modification prior to timely responding to the request.

3. Discovery request must be responded to within the time frames established by the

Federal and local rules.

4. No party shall withhold discovery responses or delay deposition solely on the ground

that its requests have not been timely responded to.

5. In the event of a future dispute, rather than filing a formal motion, the parties, after

meeting and conferring, shall file a joint letter not exceeding four (4) pages total certifying they have

met and conferred in person (stating the place and length of time fo the meeting) and describing the

specific disputes and their respective positions as to each such dispute.

The parties shall report to this Court by May 17, 2006 whether the disputes have been

resolved.

As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 37), Defendant has agreed to produce

Dolores Reyes for deposition prior to the mediation, thereby DENYING as moot that part of the

motion. Regarding compelling Defendants’ counsel to communicate settlement offers, that is a

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

matter that should be discussed with Judge Laporte, as the settlement judge, in advance of the June

settlement conference.

This order disposes of Docket No. 37 and defers ruling on Docket No. 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 44 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 3