Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HAROLD DAVIS, Case No. 19-cv-07650-HSG (TSH)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No. 98, 103 PINTEREST, INC., Defendant.

12 Yikes. On the last day for him to move to compel on written discovery (see ECF No. 63 and Civil Local Rule 37-3),1 Plaintiff Harold Davis has moved to compel on 30 discovery requests – 28 requests for production (“RFPs”) and two interrogatories (“rogs”) – in one fell swoop in a single joint discovery letter brief. ECF No. 98. Davis’s section of the letter brief largely avoids discussing what these discovery requests asked for. His arguments are written in the negative in that he focuses solely on certain of Pinterest’s objections, arguing that they have no merit. Pinterest, as the party opposing the motion to compel, simply responds to the arguments asserted. Thus, we have the strange situation that both sections of the letter brief are about the propriety of Pinterest’s objections rather than the propriety of the…