Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC

Filing 166

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/25/12 denying without prejudice 164 Motion to Compel. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia Limited Partnership, 11 Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-00389 WBS KJN 12 v. 13 14 MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC, 15 Defendant. ORDER / 16 17 On April 24, 2012, defendant filed a motion to compel a further deposition of 18 plaintiff and responses to requests for production, which relate to recent closures of certain Best 19 Buy Stores (Dkt. No. 164). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned denies defendant’s 20 motion to compel without prejudice and vacates the May 10, 2012 hearing date noticed by 21 defendant.1 22 As an initial matter, the undersigned drops defendant’s motion to compel from the 23 court’s May 10, 2012 civil law and motion calendar because defendant defectively noticed its 24 motion. Specifically, defendant only provided 16 days of notice despite the fact that Local 25 1 26 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 Rule 251(a) requires “at least 21 days” of notice. Defendant has not argued that its motion falls 2 within an exception to the 21-day notice requirement provided in Local Rule 251(e). 3 Additionally, the undersigned denies defendant’s motion to compel without 4 prejudice because defendant essentially admits that it did not meet and confer with plaintiff 5 before filing its motion. Local Rule 251(b) provides that discovery motions will not be heard 6 unless “the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences,” and that “[c]ounsel 7 for all interested parties shall confer in advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the 8 hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the differences that are the subject of the 9 motion.” Defendant asserts, with no reliance on documents or a declaration, that plaintiff 10 “rejected any attempt by [defendant] to re-open or extend discovery to obtain [the] information” 11 that is the subject of this discovery dispute. (Mot. to Compel at 3.) Instead of meeting and 12 conferring in good faith in advance of filing the present motion, defendant “filed this motion . . . 13 simultaneously with propounding discovery in an effort to expedite the resolution of this 14 discovery dispute.” (Id.) Defendant offers the following as its unsubstantiated basis for side- 15 stepping the court’s Local Rules: “Because [plaintiff] already has announced its refusal to 16 respond to any discovery by [defendant] on its store closures, and given that trial is scheduled to 17 begin June 12, 2012, [defendant] did not engage in the futile act of propounding discovery, 18 waiting 30 days, and then filing this motion.” (Id.) Although defendant would like to have its 19 motion heard on its own preferred schedule, the Local Rules, and not defendant’s preference, 20 govern the filing of motions in this court. The undersigned notes that defendant did not follow 21 the approach authorized by Local Rule 251(a), which permits parties to have a discovery dispute 22 heard on seven days of notice. See Local Rule 251(a) (“If the notice of motion and motion are 23 filed concurrently with the Joint Statement, the motion shall be placed on the next regularly 24 scheduled calendar for the Magistrate Judge or Judge hearing the motion at least seven (7) days 25 thereafter.”). 26 //// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel (Dkt. 2 No. 164) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: April 25, 2012 5 6 7 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?