Bellerose

Rogers v. Bellerose

Bad Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 20203:20-cv-00438California1,237 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION 7 WILLIAM E ROGERS, Case No. 20-cv-00438-VC (RMI)

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v. LETTER BRIEFS

NANCY BELLEROSE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 39 Defendants.

13 Now pending before the court are an Updated Joint Discovery Letter Brief (dkt. 34) and a Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief (dkt. 39). Previously, the parties had presented their original Discovery Letter Brief (dkt. 32) setting forth various issues, some of which appeared to have already been resolved; accordingly, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer in an effort to narrow or resolve the matters in dispute (see Order (dkt. 33)) and then to file an Updated Joint Letter Brief. However, when the parties file their Updated Joint Discovery Letter Brief (dkt. 34), it still appeared that they were arguing in a disjointed fashion because Defendants submitted that some of the disputed supplemental…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.