Rosales et al v. El Rancho Farms

Filing 80

ORDER Denying 64 Motion to Compel, and ORDER Vacating Hearing date of 4/9/2012 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/3/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MARGARITA ROSALES, and ANGELICA) ROSALES, on behalf of themselves and all ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) EL RANCHO FARMS, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 64) ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE OF APRIL 9, 2012 Plaintiffs Margarita Rosales and Angelica Rosales (“Plaintiffs”) filed a notice of motion 19 and motion seeking to compel production of documents and electronic records from Garza 20 Contracting, a third-party, on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 64). The Court issued a minute order on 21 February 29, 2012, setting the matter for a hearing on April 9, 2012. (Doc. 68). 22 Apparently, unfamiliar with the requirement that such a motion must proceed under Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 451 rather than Rule 37, Plaintiffs filed their notice of motion to compel compliance 24 with a subpoena issued to the third-party pursuant to Local Rule 251. (Doc. 64) In it, Plaintiffs 25 asserted they would provide a “Joint Statement re: Discovery Dispute” prior to the hearing as 26 27 28 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 governs the filing of a motion to compel a response from a non-party who has been served with a subpoena duces tecum. (Doc. 75 at 5); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B) (providing that when a non-party has objected to a subpoena duces tecum, “the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection”). 1 1 required by Local Rule 251. Id. However, because, of course, Local Rule 251 is applicable only 2 “to motion[s] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37,” the motion should have been filed 3 pursuant to Local Rule 230, which sets forth the procedure for setting a motion before the Court. 4 Local Rule 230 provides that when filing a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 5 37, “[t]he moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs,2 affidavits, if 6 appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in 7 support of the motion.” LR 230. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to provide a memorandum of points 8 and authorities in support of their motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally defective 9 and fails to comply with the provisions of the Local Rules. 10 Despite that no memorandum was filed, Garza timely filed written opposition to the 11 motion. (Doc. 75) Then, apparently realizing that they had not filed either a memorandum or a 12 joint statement, Plaintiffs filed a “reply” a mere one week before the hearing on the motion. 13 (Doc. 76) In the “reply, for the first time, Plaintiffs provide substantive argument as to the merits 14 of the motion. 15 In doing so, Plaintiffs offer little explanation of why they believe that Garza’s due process 16 rights have not been trampled and instead, pooh-pooh Garza’s complaints that it has not been 17 allowed to address any of Plaintiffs arguments because, of course, none had been made by the 18 time their opposition was due. Plaintiffs’ cavalierly suggest that, even though only three court 19 days remain before the hearing, the Court should cure this problem by allowing Garza to file a 20 sur-reply despite the cost this imposes on Garza and despite the burden this places on the Court. 21 The Court is assured that Plaintiffs are aware that this Court has one of the highest 22 caseloads in the entire country. In order to expeditiously address their cases, and those of all of 23 the other litigants, it cannot allow itself to be placed in a situation in which it has, literally, no 24 time to evaluate or consider the arguments in opposition to a substantive motion before a 25 calendared hearing on the motion. The Court does not find that Plaintiffs’ purposefully 26 sandbagged Garza. However, through their lack of diligence, the result is the same. 27 /// 28 2 “Briefs include memoranda, points and authorities, and other written arguments . . .” LR 101. 2 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. 3 4 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from third-party Garza Contracting (Doc. 64) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 2. 5 The hearing on the motion set for April 9, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: April 3, 2012 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?