Connolly

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Connolly

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 13, 20235:22-cv-04106California1,693 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Case No. 22-cv-04106-VKD

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE JUNE 27, 2023

v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE

DAVID JAMES CONNOLLY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 48 Defendant.

13 On June 27, 2023, plaintiff Levi Strauss and Co. (“LS&Co.”) unilaterally filed a discovery dispute letter regarding defendant David James Connolly’s alleged failure to respond to LS&Co.’s discovery requests. Dkt. No. 46. At the Court’s direction, Mr. Connolly filed a response to LS&Co.’s letter on June 29, 2023. Dkt. No. 48; see Dkt. No. 47. The Court deems this dispute suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that Mr. Connolly has not complied with his discovery obligations, and that LS&Co. is entitled to the relief described below. I. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2022, LS&Co. served requests for production of documents…

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.