CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING No. 2:20-cv-02482 WBS-AC PROTECTION ALLIANCE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 KATHLEEN ALLISON, in her official 14 capacity as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 15 Rehabilitation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 COUNTY OF AMADOR, a public agency of the State of California, 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 KATHLEEN ALLISON, in her official 22 capacity as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections; PATRICK 23 COVELLO, in his official capacity as the Warden of the California Department of 24 Corrections and Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 ] Pending before the court 1s plaintiff California Sportfishing Alliance’s second ex parte 2 || motion to quash the subpoena of Edmund Taylor. ECF No. 78. This discovery matter was 3 || referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). 4 Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to 5 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet 6 || and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no joint discovery statement has been filed. 7 || Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s joint discovery statement 8 || requirement, the motion to compel could be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 9 | 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local 10 || Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing). 11 Here, however, the court notes that it already denied an ex parte motion regarding the 12 || deposition of Edmund Taylor. ECF No. 74. The motion was addressed on an ex parte basis to 13 || avoid unnecessary waste due to time restrictions. The deposition nonetheless had to be 14 || rescheduled, and plaintiff now attempts a second bite at the apple, again filing ex parte. Because 15 || the court is unpersuaded on the mertis and finds this motion duplicative, it is DENIED with 16 || prejudice on the merits. 17 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to quash 18 || the deposition subpoena of Edmund Taylor (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | DATE: October 5, 2022 7 / 21 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28