Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al
Filing
374
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/9/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs shall meet and confer in good faith with defendant Nevada County with respect to defendant's motions to compel. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement no later than 9/6/2013. The court will not consider any additional legal argument or briefing. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRENT WINTERS, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:09-cv-0522-JAM-KJN PS
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Presently pending before the court are five motions to compel supplemental answers to
18
interrogatories propounded on plaintiffs Brent Winters, Cacey Winters, Christy Winters, Jennifer
19
Winters, and Susan Winters by defendant Nevada County Adult Protective Services (“Nevada
20
County”). (ECF Nos. 352, 354, 358, 361, 364.) The motions were initially noticed for hearing on
21
September 12, 2013, but in light of the court’s own unavailability on that date, the hearing on the
22
motions was continued by minute order to September 19, 2013. (ECF No. 373.)
23
Although the court presently takes no position with respect to the parties’ substantive
24
discovery dispute, it appears from defendant’s motion papers that plaintiffs failed to meet and
25
confer in good faith with respect to the parties’ discovery disagreement and failed to participate in
26
the preparation of a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement in accordance with
27
Local Rule 251. In particular, plaintiffs apparently failed to respond to defendant Nevada
28
County’s meet-and-confer letters, telephone calls, and e-mails.
1
1
Local Rule 251 provides, in part, that:
2
[A] motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37,
including any motion to exceed discovery limitations or motion for
protective order, shall not be heard unless (1) the parties have
conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the
parties have set forth differences and the bases therefor in a Joint
Statement re Discovery Disagreement. Counsel for all interested
parties shall confer in advance of the filing of the motion or in
advance of the hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to
resolve the differences that are the subject of the motion. Counsel
for the moving party or prospective moving party shall be
responsible for arranging the conference, which shall be held at a
time and place and in a manner mutually convenient to counsel.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(b). Local Rule 251(c) sets forth the specific requirements for the contents of
10
the parties’ joint statement. Local Rule 251(d) provides that “[r]efusal of any counsel to
11
participate in a discovery conference, or refusal without good cause to execute the required joint
12
statement, shall be grounds, in the discretion of the Court, for entry of an order adverse to the
13
party represented by counsel so refusing or adverse to counsel.” The court’s Local Rules further
14
provide that “[a]ny individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the
15
Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All
16
obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona.
17
Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other
18
sanction appropriate under these Rules.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a).
19
In light of the above, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to meet and confer in good faith with
20
defendant Nevada County with respect to defendant’s motions to compel. The parties’ meet-and-
21
confer efforts shall include at least one personal meet-and-confer session, which may be
22
conducted by telephone. If the parties are ultimately unable to resolve their dispute informally,
23
the parties shall work together to prepare and file a joint statement regarding their discovery
24
disagreement in accordance with Local Rule 251.1 Apart from appropriate declarations setting
25
forth necessary facts for purposes of adjudicating the discovery dispute, the court will not
26
1
27
28
Because there is significant overlap between the interrogatories propounded on the various
plaintiffs and the issues raised by plaintiffs’ responses, the parties may file a single joint
statement addressing all five motions to compel, grouping the various interrogatories/issues as
appropriate.
2
1
consider any briefing or legal argument submitted other than what is contained in the parties’
2
joint statement.
3
Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to cooperate in good faith in the meet-and-confer
4
process; failure to cooperate with the preparation and filing of the joint statement regarding the
5
discovery disagreement; or failure to otherwise comply with their obligations under Local Rule
6
251, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this order, will result in the imposition of
7
sanctions pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, potentially
8
including a summary grant of defendant’s motion to compel, monetary sanctions, and/or
9
dismissal of the action with prejudice.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1.
Plaintiffs shall meet and confer in good faith with defendant Nevada County with
12
respect to defendant’s motions to compel. The parties’ meet-and-confer efforts shall
13
include at least one personal meet-and-confer session, which may be conducted by
14
telephone.
15
2. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally, the parties shall prepare
16
and file a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement in accordance with
17
Local Rule 251 and this order no later than September 6, 2013. The court will not
18
consider any additional legal argument or briefing.
19
3. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to cooperate in good faith in the meet-and-confer
20
process; failure to cooperate with the preparation and filing of the joint statement
21
regarding the discovery disagreement; or failure to otherwise comply with their
22
obligations under Local Rule 251, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this order,
23
will result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal
24
Rules of Civil Procedure, potentially including a summary grant of defendant’s motion
25
to compel, monetary sanctions, and/or dismissal of the action with prejudice.
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 9, 2013
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?