Opinion
21-cv-04756-TLT (TSH)
07-29-2024
BRANDON LAU, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Defendant.
DISCOVERY ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 108
THOMAS S. HIXSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In ECF No. 108, Plaintiff filed a discovery dispute motion. Defendant responded in ECF No. 109. The Court held hearings on June 6, 2024 and July 18, 2024 to better understand the nature of the dispute and the relief Plaintiff was seeking. Also, because Defendant argued that the state of discovery was not sufficient to conduct a productive settlement conference (see ECF No. 111), the Court wanted to understand what the state of discovery was. In connection with these hearings, both sides made substantial additional document productions. (In Defendant's case, sometimes this involved reproducing things that had previously been produced.)
Following these two hearings, the Court thinks that Lau has not demonstrated that the Defendant has documents in his possession, custody or control that Plaintiff is entitled to and that have still not been produced. Recognizing that Lau received a lot of documents quite recently, once he has reviewed them (and if discovery is reopened such that further discovery disputes can be raised), he may be able to develop arguments that certain things have not been provided to him that should have been. The Court's point is that after having had two hearings on the discovery motion at ECF No. 108, Lau does not have any currently developed arguments that the Defendant's document productions are lacking in something that should be there.
For his part, Defendant is critical of Lau's disclosures and argues that Plaintiff has still not complied with General Order 71. But we are here on Lau's motion; the government didn't file a discovery motion. In addition, the Court is of the view that the state of discovery is sufficient to conduct a productive settlement conference, which the Court will now proceed to schedule.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's discovery motion at ECF No. 108 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.