Opinion
23-cv-00998-VC (TSH)
01-16-2024
ANBANG GROUP HOLDINGS CO. LIMITED, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAIBIN ZHOU, et al., Defendants.
DISCOVERY ORDER
THOMAS S. HIXSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
As the parties know, the Court attempted to have a telephonic discovery hearing on November 17, 2023, but defense counsel's long, rambling speeches and constant interruptions made the hearing impossible. ECF No. 148. The Court gave the parties guidance on how to present the discovery disputes at issue by filing them in writing on the docket. The Court also told the parties how to raise future discovery disputes:
For future discovery disputes, the Court relieves the parties of the requirement in its Discovery Standing Order to submit joint discovery letter briefs. For future disputes, either side shall file a discovery letter brief not to exceed two and a half pages, and the other side's response (also not to exceed two and a half pages) shall be due two court days later. There is no restriction on the number of exhibits. Plaintiffs should use this mechanism to raise the crime-fraud issue. After the Court reviews the letter briefs, it will decide if additional briefing on that issue is warranted.
The Court meant it. Defense counsel's conduct at the attempted November 17 hearing really did ruin the point of trying to have a hearing. That's why the Court ordered the parties to submit all future discovery disputes by filing discovery letter briefs. The Court ORDERS the parties to stop emailing the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy to request telephonic hearings and ORDERS to parties to comply with ECF No. 148 by raising all discovery disputes by filing a discovery letter brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.