Fairfield v. General Motors LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOPHIA FAIRFIELD and MATTHEW No. 2:18-cv-01921 JAM AC MACHUCA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel. ECF No. 28. The motion is 19 currently set for hearing on November 13, 2019 before the undersigned. This discovery matter 20 was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). 21 The noticed motion purports to incorporate the issues and arguments presented in two 22 joint statements, previously docketed at ECF No. 16 (joint statement regarding entry of protective 23 order) and ECF No. 20 (joint statement regarding motion to compel RFP responses). ECF No. 24 28. The matter presented in the joint statement at ECF No. 16 has been resolved by stipulation 25 and entry of a stipulated protective order. ECF No. 22, 25. Only the issues presented in the joint 26 statement at ECF No. 20 (motion to compel) remain at issue. Discovery in this matter closes 27 April 24, 2020. ECF No. 24. 28 //// 1 Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to 2 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet 3 || and confer and file a joint discovery statement. The undersigned’s standing orders, located on the 4 | Eastern District of California’s website, specify that absent leave of court, joint statements are 5 || limited to 25 pages, exclusive of exhibits and tables, if any. Here, the joint statement at ECF No. 6 || 20 is problematic for two reasons. First, at 48 pages, it exceeds the page limit. Second, defendant 7 || repeatedly states throughout the brief that it is willing to supplement production and that meet and 8 || confer is not complete. Defendant’s response to most issues in the brief states that “GM informed 9 | plaintiffs that GM would supplement certain discovery responses and Plaintiffs’ counsel was 10 || advised to review and evaluate the supplemental responses along with the documents GM agreed 11 || to produce to determine if there are any outstanding issues remaining .. . it is unreasonable to 12 | burden the court and parties with the numerous issues raised by plaintiff when the meet and 13 || confer process has not been completed.” ECF No. 20 at 3. 14 Because plaintiffs, the movants, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer 15 || requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. 16 || Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with 17 || Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing). Pursuant to the 18 || standing order of the undersigned, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video 19 | conferencing prior to the filing of any joint statement, in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The 20 || parties are cautioned that any future joint statement must comply with the undersigned’s page 21 || limits or the document will be rejected. 22 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The November 13, 2019 hearing on plaintiffs ‘motion to compel is VACATED; and 24 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ECF No. 28, is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATE: November 7, 2019 4. bers — (A /, 27 ALLISON CLAIRE 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE