1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAM KASLE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08015-MMC (KAW)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TERMINATING 10/24/25 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

10 KAREN VAN PUTTEN, et al., [Discovery Letter #1] 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 116 12 13 On October 24, 2025, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendants’ review 14 and collection of mobile data. (Dkt. No. 116.) 15 On October 20, 2025, however, the judiciary ran out of funding and only limited 16 operations will continue until the ongoing lapse in government funding is resolved. As a result, on 17 October 20, 2025, the undersigned issued a Government Shutdown Standing Order that conferred 18 additional requirements on parties during the pendency of the shutdown to alleviate some burden 19 on court staff currently working without pay: [U]ntil the judiciary is funded, parties shall meet and confer before 20 filing any substantive motion, including discovery disputes. The parties shall determine whether the litigation can proceed without the 21 motion or whether the motion must be urgently resolved. If the latter, lead counsel shall file a certification with the filing of any substantive 22 motion stating: (1) that the parties met and conferred, and (2) the basis for the urgency. Examples of urgency include fast-approaching 23 deadlines imposed by the Court or matters that affect an individual’s liberty interests. Failure to provide the certification will result in a sua 24 sponte denial without prejudice. 25 (Judge Westmore Shutdown Standing Order at 1 (emphasis in original).) The parties did not 26 include a certification with their joint discovery letter, so the pending dispute is TERMINATED 27 and the relief sought denied without prejudice. 1 of the letter, the Court is not convinced that Defendants’ proposed “auditable [search] process” 2 || comports with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, as the amount of attorney supervision over the 3 search and production process appears to fall far below that contemplated by In re Social Media 4 || Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, No. 22-MD-03047-YGR 5 (PHK),

, at *14-16 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2024), which Defendants cite in support 6 || of their proposal. (See Joint Letter at 4.) 7 This resolved Dkt. No. 116. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 27, 2025

10 ANDIS A. WESTMORE Unitéd States Magistrate Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28