Harrison v. Whole Foods Market

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRINA HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 20-cv-04867-JSW (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 104
The Court terminates ECF No. 104. The first part of the document looks like an
opposition to a proposed protective order. If the parties have a discovery dispute concerning a
proposed protective order, they should file a joint discovery letter brief setting forth their
arguments. Plaintiff’s submission is unilateral, so the Court cannot even tell what protective order
she is opposing. The “argument” section of ECF No. 104 and Plaintiff’s declaration look like they
mostly address a declaration filed in October of last year (ECF No. 80) concerning a discovery
dispute the Court has already ruled on. And Plaintiff’s “proof of service” – in which she claims to
have incurred $1,500 in service fees (plus a $375 tip!) for email and ECF service of ECF No. 104
– is obviously bogus. ECF No. 104 is vexatious and should not have been filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:20-cv-04867-JSW Document 106 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 1