Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2019

JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

Judge
Robert Illman
Docket
3:18-cv-02669
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In JW Gaming Development v. James, Judge Illman denied a discovery motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer before filing any joint dispute letter.

Who this affects

JW Gaming Development, LLC and the defendants, including Angela James, were required to follow the court’s discovery-dispute procedures and meet and confer.

What happened

JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James concerned seven discovery disputes involving interrogatories, document requests, requests for admission, deposition requests, and a third-party subpoena. JW Gaming Development presented the disputes in a filing by itself.

The court said the filing violated its standing procedures, which require discovery disputes to be presented in a joint letter of no more than five pages. The filing was 18 pages, and JW Gaming Development said the defendants had refused to participate.

Judge Illman denied the motion and ordered the parties to meet in person by November 18, 2019, to try in good faith to resolve or narrow the disputes. If disputes remained, the parties had to file a compliant joint letter by noon on November 19, 2019.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James · No. 3:18-cv-02669
Judge
Robert Illman
Date
Nov. 12, 2019

Background

JW Gaming Development, LLC filed a document titled “Statement re Discovery (Separate),” presenting seven discovery disputes. The disputes concerned the adequacy of responses to interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission, along with deposition requests and a third-party subpoena. JW Gaming Development stated that the defendants had refused to participate in the letter brief and that a unilateral filing was warranted because the disputes had been ongoing and other issues were imminent.

Applicable procedure

Section 13 of the court’s General Standing Order requires discovery disputes to be presented in a jointly filed letter brief of no more than five pages. The order also addresses what a moving party should do if it cannot obtain the opposing party’s portion of a joint letter. JW Gaming Development instead filed an 18-page letter brief on its own. The court reminded the parties that discovery motions should be filed only in extraordinary situations involving truly significant interests.

Ruling

The court DENIED JW Gaming Development’s motion, identified as docket number 139. It ORDERED the parties to meet and confer in person no later than Monday, November 18, 2019, in a good-faith effort to resolve or narrow the seven disputes. If any disputes remained, the court ORDERED the parties to file a joint letter brief complying with Section 13 of the General Standing Order no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2019. The order did not decide the underlying discovery disputes.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.