Arias v. Ruan Transport Corporation

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and VACATING APRIL 19, 2017 Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/14/2017. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER ARIAS, Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 1:16-cv-00280-SAB ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH v. 14 15 ORDER VACATING APRIL 19, 2017 HEARING RUAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Defendant. (ECF No. 31) 16 17 On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion to quash subpoenas that Defendant 18 had served on third party medical providers. (ECF No. 31.) On March 23, 2017, the Court set 19 the hearing for the motion to quash for April 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 33.) On March 20 29, 2017, a hearing was held on Defendant’s motion to continue the scheduling deadlines in this 21 action during which the Court informed the parties that they were required to comply with Local 22 Rule 251 in bringing a discovery motion, including the motion to quash. On April 5, 2017, 23 Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to quash. (ECF No. 44.) 24 On April 7, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to meet and confer and 25 file a joint statement of discovery disagreement in compliance with Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 26 46.) The Court also stated that it would disregard the argument in Plaintiff’s motion and 27 Defendant’s opposition. The parties have not filed a joint statement re discovery disagreement 28 or an affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 251(d). 1 1 The Local Rules provide that a party may file a motion to compel and serve a noticed 2 motion scheduling the hearing date twenty-one days from the date the motion is served. L.R. 3 251(a). The parties may also file the notice of motion and motion concurrently with the joint 4 statement scheduling the hearing date seven days from the date of filing. L.R. 251(a). To 5 comply with Local Rule 251, the parties are required to file a joint statement of the discovery 6 dispute or an affidavit pursuant to Rule 251(d) at least seven days prior to the hearing date. L.R. 7 251(a). “The hearing may be dropped from the calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement 8 re Discovery Disagreement or an affidavit as set forth below is not filed at least seven (7) days 9 before the scheduled hearing date.” L.R. 251(a). 10 Here, the parties have not filed a joint statement re discovery disagreement or an affidavit 11 pursuant to Local Rule 251(d). The Court does not find that the exception in Local Rule 251(e) 12 applies here. Therefore, the parties have not complied with Local Rule 251. Thus, the hearing 13 on Plaintiff’s motion to quash is vacated and Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied without 14 prejudice. 15 Counsel are reminded that they must work together on this case. The Court expects that 16 counsel will be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, and 17 other applicable laws and rules. Counsel are strongly encouraged to resolve their disputes 18 independently. 19 There are two manners in which to have discovery disputes resolved. The first is by a 20 noticed motion as described in Local Rule 251. Secondly, the parties may agree to participate in 21 the informal discovery dispute process which can be found at the United States District Court for 22 the Eastern District of California’s website ( under Judges; United 23 States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone (SAB). In the area entitled “Case Management 24 Procedures,” there is a link to “Discovery Dispute Procedures.” 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The April 19, 2017 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to quash is vacated; and 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied without prejudice. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 14, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 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?