Opinion
4:23-cv-03239-KAW
01-24-2024
JOHN GIRTY, Plaintiff, v. PARADIGM COLLECTION LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TERMINATING 1/17/24 JOINT LETTERS RE: DKT. NOS. 32, 33, 34, 35
KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 17, 2024, the parties filed four separate joint letters. (Dkt. Nos. 32-25.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). There is a pending motion to dismiss in this case, so the pleadings remain unsettled, the Court has not held a case management conference under Rule 26(f), and Plaintiff has not obtained permission under Rule 26(d) to propound early discovery.
To the extent that the parties have stipulated to early discovery, and Defendants have agreed to respond to the propounded discovery at least in part, Plaintiff appears unwilling to provide reasonable extensions of time for them to respond. The parties are directed to review the Northern District's Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which provide that, “[c]onsistent with existing law and court orders, a lawyer should agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time when the legitimate interests of his or her client will not be adversely affected.” (Northern District's Guidelines for Professional Conduct § 4, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/guidelines-for-professional-conduct/). This is certainly a circumstance in which extensions should be granted since formal discovery is not open. Indeed, absent stipulation or court order, pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), early requests for production of documents are not deemed served until the Rule 26(f) case management conference.
Accordingly, the four pending joint letters are TERMINATED, and the parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding the pending disputes to avoid further court intervention. The parties are advised that the Court is not inclined to compel further responses from Defendants until after the time prescribed in Rule 26(d).
This disposes of Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34, and 35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.