`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ASHLEY M GJOVIK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC (KAW)
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`[Discovery Letter #5]
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 171
`
`
`
`On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed four discovery letter briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 162-165.) On
`
`February 20, 2025, the Court terminated the filings on the grounds that the Court does not
`
`entertain unilateral discovery letters. (Dkt. No. 170.) Plaintiff was advised that “the parties are
`
`required to meet and confer and file joint discovery letters to address pending discovery disputes
`
`in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order.” Id. at 1 (citing Judge Westmore’s General
`
`Standing Order ¶¶ 13- 14).
`
`On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
`
`terminating the discovery letters.1 (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 171.) Specifically, Plaintiff requested
`
`“reconsideration of her request for a Judge-supervised meet and confer telephone conference, as
`
`prescribed by the Honorable Judge Chen last year, due to the open and ongoing discovery disputes
`
`between the parties.” Id. at 3.2
`
`On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition and explained that Plaintiff filed her
`
`
`1 Plaintiff did not follow the proper procedure. Before filing a motion for reconsideration, a party
`is required to obtain leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Thus, the Court will construe this as a
`motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
`2 The Court notes that Plaintiff attached more than 60 pages of exhibits even though the Court’s
`standing order limits discovery letter exhibits to 12 pages. (Judge Westmore’s Standing Order ¶
`14(b)(ii).)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 181 Filed 03/11/25 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`request for reconsideration without asking Apple to meet and confer in accordance with the
`
`Court’s Standing Order. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 178 at 1.) Defendant further represented that it remains
`
`willing to meet and confer in accordance with the Court’s standing order. Id.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding her
`
`request for a judge-supervised meet and confer telephone conference is DENIED. At this
`
`juncture, the Court finds no basis to depart from the procedures set forth in the standing order,
`
`which requires that the parties meet and confer in person or via video conference. (Judge
`
`Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) If Plaintiff is concerned about the possibility of
`
`Defendant making “unlawful threats and coercive statements” during the meet and confer or the
`
`potential that the discussions will be misrepresented, the parties can meet via video conference and
`
`record the meet and confer session. (See Dkt. No. 171 at 2.) The parties are advised to limit their
`
`discussions to the relevant discovery device(s) at issue. This meet and confer process is not the
`
`appropriate venue to air general grievances.
`
`Finally, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the Northern District’s model
`
`stipulated protective order (available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/model-protective-orders/).
`
`If the parties are unable to agree, the Court is inclined to adopt the model order for standard
`
`litigation.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 11, 2025
`
`__________________________________
`KANDIS A. WESTMORE
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
