Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01741/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01741-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dropbox, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Thru Inc.
Counter-claimant

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

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THRU INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01741-EMC (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint letter regarding the scope of Thru’s discovery 

requests. Dkt. No. 39. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, it appears they may be able to 

resolve this dispute with further meet and confer efforts. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the 

parties to meet and confer in person to attempt to reach an agreement regarding a narrowed scope 

of requests.1 If unable to reach a resolution, the parties may file an updated letter addressing 

specific disputes. However, if any remaining dispute centers on the permissible scope of 

discovery prior to mediation, the parties should request clarification from Judge Chen prior to 

submitting an updated letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

In the letter, the parties state “Defendant’s lead counsel is in Texas,” but they provide no reason 

why local counsel is unable to meet and confer.

Case 3:15-cv-01741-EMC Document 42 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 1