Ramirez-Castellanos v. Nugget Market, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMY DAVID RAMIREZ- No. 2:17-cv-01025 JAM AC CASTELLANOS, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 NUGGET MARKET, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the court is a motion for discovery by defendants Issa Quarra and Building 19 Maintenance Group, ECF No. 119, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. 20 R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was filed on May 29, 2020. The undersigned struck the 21 brief as non-comlpliant with Local Rule 251(c), and ordered a joint statement to be filed on or 22 before June 24, 2020. ECF No. 120. No joint statement has been filed. 23 Local Rule 251(b) establishes the requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant 24 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet 25 and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no joint discovery statement has been filed, 26 despite a specific warning that failure to file a joint statement would result in denial of the motion 27 without prejudice. ECF No. 120. Accordingly, because the moving party did not satisfy Local 28 Rule 251(b)’s joint discovery statement requirement, the motion for discovery will be denied WAS Cot VEVES VAIN ENS RUUD ere Yt eve 1 || without prejudice. See e.g., United States v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2 | 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without 3 || prejudice to re-filing). 4 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for 5 || discovery (ECF No. 119) is DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | DATE: June 25, 2020 . 8 Cthren— 9 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28