Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00736/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00736-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricoh Americas Corporation
Defendant
Ricoh USA, Inc.
Defendant
Patrick Rulo
Plaintiff

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

PATRICK RULO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00736-HSG (JSC)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Plaintiff Patrick Rulo (“Plaintiff”) brings this wrongful termination action against his 

former employer, Defendants Ricoh Americas Corp., as well as Ricoh USA, Inc. and a number of 

Doe Defendants. This action has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution 

of discovery disputes. (Dkt. No. 26.) Now pending before the Court is discovery dispute 

pertaining to (1) Defendants’ boilerplate objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests; (2) whether 

Plaintiff waived objections to Defendants’ written discovery requests, (3) the scheduling of 

Plaintiff’s deposition, and (4) the parties’ Stipulation for ADR Conference—namely, the type of 

ADR requested.

1

 (Dkt. No. 24.) The parties did not submit a complete joint letter brief

addressing all of these issues; instead, Plaintiff submitted a declaration along with a copy of the 

latest draft of the parties’ joint letter brief that addressed only the second and third issues above. 

(Dkt. No. 24 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 24-1.) Although Defendants’ perspective is reflected at least in part in 

the draft joint letter brief, because Plaintiff ultimately submitted the discovery dispute to the Court 

unilaterally, the Court will provide Defendants an opportunity to respond. Defendants shall 

 1 Plaintiff also raised the issue of the need for a Stipulated Protective Order, but the district court 

entered the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order shortly after Plaintiff filed her declaration 

describing the discovery dispute. (Dkt. No. 25.)

Case 4:15-cv-00736-HSG Document 27 Filed 10/22/15 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

submit a brief response to the issues Plaintiff raised by close of business on Friday, October 23, 

2015. For all future discovery disputes, the parties must comply with all provisions of the Court’s 

Standing Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00736-HSG Document 27 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 2