Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315-23/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TSI Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Aleksandr L. Yufa
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TSI INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 09-01315-KAW

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S AUGUST 14, 

2013 DISCOVERY LETTER

(Dkt. No. 124)

On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff Aleksandr L. Yufa filed a discovery letter brief seeking to 

compel supplemental responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and 

requests for admission. (Dkt. No. 124.) 

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, all discovery letters must be jointly prepared by 

the parties. Defendant TSI did not participate in the drafting of the discovery letter. The parties 

are, therefore, ordered to meet and confer to resolve the pending disputes. If those efforts fail to 

fully resolve all issues of contention, the parties shall jointly write and file a letter outlining any 

remaining discovery disputes consistent with the Standing Order. Any joint letter filed must be in 

the form of a letter, and not in the form of a brief. The parties are hereby directed to the Court's 

General Standing Order, available online at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/kaworders.

In an effort to provide the parties with some guidance in their meet and confer efforts, the 

Court briefly reviewed Plaintiff’s letter and discerned that at least some of the identified 

grievances were without merit. For example, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, TSI’s 

interrogatory responses were signed by attorney Christopher Sullivan, whose name is printed 

below the signature line. Discovery responses are generally signed by counsel when a party is 

represented. In another example, Interrogatories 2-4 appear to seek some kind of admission from 

Defendant that its products infringe on the ‘983 Patent, but are vague and unintelligible. Plaintiff 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 126 Filed 08/21/13 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

might be better served by propounding additional discovery before the close of fact discovery on 

October 31, 2013. As to Request for Admission No. 8, TSI’s objection to the term “public use” is 

well founded, as Plaintiff did not define the term in his requests for admission. These are the 

types of disputes that should be easily resolved through the meet and confer process, and the joint 

letter, if necessary, should only contain topics that the parties cannot resolve without court 

intervention. The parties are ordered to meet and confer telephonically prior to filing a joint 

discovery letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 21, 2013 ___________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 126 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 2