Doe v. Regents of the University of California
- William Orrick
- 3:23-cv-00598
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Jane Doe v. Regents, Judge Westmore terminated a discovery letter because it violated formatting rules and appeared to challenge response accuracy.
Jane Doe and the other plaintiffs, and the Regents of the University of California; the order ended the parties’ submitted discovery letter without resolving the factual accuracy dispute.
What happened
Jane Doe and the other plaintiffs and the Regents of the University of California filed a joint letter about the Regents’ responses to two interrogatories.
The court terminated the letter because it did not follow the required format and included exhibits that were too long. The plaintiffs appeared to question whether the responses were accurate, while the Regents argued that the evidence did not contradict them.
Judge Westmore noted that courts generally do not use discovery proceedings to resolve disagreements about factual accuracy. The order did not require the Regents to provide further responses.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Regents of the University of California · No. 3:23-cv-00598
- William Orrick
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
On August 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning the Regents’ responses to two interrogatories. The opinion identifies the filing as Discovery Letter No. 5 and refers to docket entry 167.
Court’s Analysis
The court terminated the discovery letter because it did not comply with the court’s Civil Standing Order in multiple respects. Specifically, the filing did not use the required format and included overlong exhibits.
The court also conducted a cursory review of the dispute. It appeared that the plaintiffs were effectively arguing that the Regents’ interrogatory responses were inaccurate. The Regents argued that the evidence on which the plaintiffs relied did not contradict the responses. The court explained that courts are generally disinclined to require further discovery responses when the dispute is about the accuracy of existing responses. It also stated that courts have declined to resolve factual challenges through discovery disputes. If the Regents stood by the accuracy of their responses, the plaintiffs could use those responses as appropriate in later depositions, pleadings, hearings, and trial.
Ruling
Judge Westmore terminated the August 20, 2026 discovery letter. The order did not decide whether the interrogatory responses were factually accurate and did not order further responses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.