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 1 Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to compel production of documents. ECF 2 No. 75. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 3 Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was field on September 21, 2022 and noticed for hearing on 4 September 28, 2022. ECF No. 75. The motion was taken under submission on the papers. ECF 5 No. 76. 6 Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet 8 and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, defendants assert an exception to this rule 9 is appropriate under Local Rule 251(d), which allows counsel to file a motion without a joint 10 statement with an affidavit that despite good faith effort, the moving party was unable to obtain 11 the cooperation of the opposing party in creating a joint statement. 12 Ordinarily, discovery motions are to be noticed on the court’s calendar at least 21 days 13 from the date of filing and service. Local Rule 251(a). Motions filed concurrently with a joint 14 statement may be set for hearing on seven days notice. Id. Pursuant to Local Rule 251(e), 15 motions involving a complete failure to respond to discovery or when the only relief sought is 16 sanctions, a hearing may be noticed 14 days from filing. In this case, defendants noticed their 17 motion 7 days from filing without concurrently filing a joint statement. ECF No. 75. The motion 18 is therefore improperly noticed. Additionally, the court is dissatisfied with the parties’ meet and 19 confer efforts and the efforts made in obtaining a joint statement. In defendants’ own motion, 20 defendants admit to serving plaintiffs with their portion of the joint statement on September 21 at 21 11:30 a.m. and demanding plaintiffs’ portion be complete by noon on September 22, 2022. ECF 22 No. 75-1 at 4. This is not a good faith effort to obtain a joint statement. 23 Because defendants, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s joint discovery 24 statement requirement and did not properly notice their motion, the motion to compel will be 25 denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 26 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without 27 //// 28 //// 1 | prejudice to re-filing). For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants 2 || motion to compel (ECF No. 75) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || DATE: October 5, 2022 * 5 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28