Puckett v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JEREMY PHILLIP PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et la., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 8, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. (ECF 19 Nos. 42 & 43.) On October 11, 2023, the undersigned continued the hearing of that motion to 20 December 1, 2023, and extended the deadline for the completion of fact discovery. (ECF No. 21 46.) On November 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to compel depositions. (ECF No. 27.) Both 22 motions are noticed for hearing before the undersigned on December 1, 2023, pursuant to Local 23 Rule 251. 24 On November 16, 2023—the day before the parties’ Joint Statements were due—the 25 parties filed a joint stipulation for order to exceed the undersigned’s Joint Statement page 26 limitation. (ECF No. 48.) In this regard the undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery 27 disputes, available on the court’s web page at 28 http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate- 1 judge-deborah-barnes-db, explains that joint statements filed before the undersigned shall not 2 exceed twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits. The parties’ stipulation states that there “are forty- 3 seven (47) unique RFPs at issue in the first discovery dispute” and “five (5) unique 4 Interrogatories and thirty (30) unique deposition topics at issue in the second discovery 5 dispute[.]” (ECF No. 48 at 2-3.) The parties, therefore, seek “a combined total 50-page limit for 6 each Joint Statement.” (Id. at 3.) 7 On this record alone, the undersigned would not have granted the parties’ stipulation. 8 That the parties’ discovery dispute is voluminous reflects the need for additional meet and confer 9 efforts, the hearing of discrete motions on separate dates, the hearing of considerable argument, 10 etc.1 Not simply allowing the parties to file lengthier briefing. 11 However, on November 17, 2023, the parties did not file any Joint Statement, even one 12 that exceeded the undersigned’s page limitation. Instead, plaintiff filed two statements styled as 13 “Plaintiff’s Portion of Joint Statement[.]” (ECF No. 49 at 1; ECF No. 50 at 1.) These documents 14 do not contain any argument from defendants. And each of these filings exceeds the 15 undersigned’s page limitation—with one statement alone consisting of 36 pages excluding 16 exhibits—even though they contain no argument from defendants.2 On November 20, 2023, 17 defendants filed their own statement as to one of plaintiff’s motions, consisting of an additional 18 21 pages of briefing. (ECF No. 52.) 19 Discovery in this action commenced over a year ago. (ECF No. 32.) As plaintiff 20 acknowledges some of the discovery at issue was served on defendants “more than eleven months 21 ago[.]” (ECF No. 50 at 5.) “The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely 22 unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 23 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). When assistance from the court is necessary, the undersigned is available 24 25 1 The parties are advised that, in any future discovery dispute, the undersigned will not hear more than one discovery motion on a given law and motion calendar as doing so would render the 26 undersigned’s page limitation meaningless. 27 2 The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, tables of citations, etc., all count 28 toward the twenty-five-page limit. 1 | for informal telephonic discovery conferences and the hearing of discovery motions. Why 2 | plaintiff did not seek the undersigned’s assistance earlier is unclear. What is clear is that plaintiff 3 | has not complied with the Local Rules or the undersigned’s Standard Information. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's September 8, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 42) is denied without 6 | prejudice; 7 2. Plaintiff's November 10, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 47) is denied without 8 | prejudice; and 9 3. The December 1, 2023 hearing of plaintiff's motions is vacated. 10 | Dated: November 21, 2023 : Mand?» 12 13 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | DLB:6 37 DB/orders/orders.civil/puckett0350.mtc.den.ord 28