Opinion
23-cv-02691-SI
06-07-2024
CLAUDJANAE YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEVON WENGER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES RE: DKT. NOS. 41, 42
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge.
On June 5, 2024, defendants Devon Wenger and Erik Nilsen filed a statement regarding a discovery dispute with plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 41. Plaintiffs filed a separate response the following day. Dkt. No. 42. Although the undersigned's Standing Order permits the filing of separate statements, it is unclear whether the parties complied with the requirement that they must meet and confer in person (or by telephone, if counsel are located outside the Bay Area) to attempt to resolve their dispute prior to filing a discovery dispute statement with the Court.
Dispute #1
For expediency purposes, the Court will deem plaintiffs' electronic signatures on their May 13, 2024 interrogatory verifications to be valid. The statements indicate that the plaintiffs each are verifying the interrogatory responses under penalty of perjury, and the statements are further accompanied by an attestation from counsel that each plaintiff's e-signature acts as a wet signature for purposes of verifying the discovery responses. Dkt. No. 41, Ex. A.
Dispute #2
Defendant Nilsen states that plaintiffs did not respond to the interrogatories and requests for production that Nilsen served on each plaintiff on March 15, 2024. In response, plaintiffs state that they “have provided full discovery responses [sic] Defendant Nilsen.” Dkt. No. 42 at 4. Plaintiffs do not state when they provided their responses. If plaintiffs provided their responses after Nilsen filed his discovery dispute statement, it appears the dispute is now moot. If the dispute is not moot, the parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone no later than June 14, 2024. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute among themselves, they may then file a statement with the Court in accordance with this Court's Standing Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.