Kasle v. Karen Van Putten
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-08015
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sam Kasle v. Karen Van Putten, Judge Westmore terminated a joint discovery letter because it lacked a required shutdown-related certification.
The plaintiffs and defendants involved in the joint discovery letter about Defendants’ review and collection of mobile data; the letter was terminated and the requested relief was denied without prejudice.
What happened
Sam Kasle and other plaintiffs, and Karen Van Putten and other defendants, filed a joint letter about the defendants’ review and collection of mobile data.
A standing order required the parties to meet and confer before filing discovery disputes during the lapse in judiciary funding and required lead counsel to certify that they had done so and explain any urgency. The parties did not include that certification.
Judge Andis A. Westmore terminated the discovery dispute and denied the requested relief without prejudice, meaning the matter was not permanently barred from being raised again. The order left the discovery dispute unresolved.
The detailed version
- Kasle v. Karen Van Putten · No. 3:24-cv-08015
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
On October 24, 2025, the parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning Defendants’ review and collection of mobile data.
On October 20, 2025, the judiciary had run out of funding, leaving only limited operations during the ongoing lapse in government funding. Judge Westmore’s shutdown standing order required parties to meet and confer before filing any substantive motion, including a discovery dispute. If the dispute needed urgent resolution, lead counsel also had to file a certification stating that the parties had met and conferred and explaining the basis for the urgency. The order stated that failure to provide the certification would result in denial without prejudice.
Ruling
The parties did not include the required certification with their joint discovery letter. Judge Andis A. Westmore therefore terminated the pending dispute and denied the relief sought without prejudice. The court also stated that it was not convinced, based on the letter, that Defendants’ proposed auditable search process complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, because the apparent level of attorney supervision seemed lower than the level discussed in a prior Northern District of California decision. The order resolved docket entry 116 but did not finally resolve the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.