Portnoy v. City of Woodland et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/13/2012 ORDERING the 22 & 25 MOTIONS to QUASH hearings are CONTINUED to 2/29/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. The parties are DIRECTED to mee t and confer either telephonically or in person in an effor to resolve the discovery disputes without court intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve their disputes, plainitff shall file a joint statement re: Discovery Disagreement on or before 2/20/12. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SERGEI PORTNOY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-11-1720 GEB EFB PS

vs.

14

CITY OF WOODLAND; DETECTIVE
TOWLE #883; OFFICER CHAN # 806;
OFFICER DROBISH #859,

15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
17

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and in propria persona, is

18

before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to quash numerous subpoenas

20

issued by defendants in this action. Dckt. No. 22. That motion has now been noticed for hearing

21

on February 22, 2012 in accordance with Local Rule 251(a). Dckt. Nos. 23, 24. Then, on

22

February 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to quash an additional subpoena issued by defendants,

23

and noticed that motion for hearing on February 29, 2012. Dckt. No. 25. In the interests of

24

judicial economy, the original motion will be continued to February 29, 2012, so that both

25

motions can be heard on the same date.

26

////
1

1

Additionally, although defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s original motion to

2

quash on February 8, 2012, Dckt. No. 26, the parties are directed to comply with Local Rule 251

3

(as opposed to Local Rule 230) since plaintiff’s motions deal with discovery matters.1 Local

4

Rule 251(b) provides that a discovery motion will “not be heard unless (1) the parties have

5

conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set forth their

6

differences and the bases therefor in a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement.” E.D. Cal.

7

L.R. 251(b). The Rule further provides that “[c]ounsel for all interested parties shall confer in

8

advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the hearing of the motion in a good faith

9

effort to resolve the differences that are the subject of the motion. Counsel for the moving party

10

or prospective moving party shall be responsible for arranging the conference, which shall be

11

held at a time and place and in a manner mutually convenient to counsel.”2 Id.

12

Local Rule 251(c) provides that if the moving party is still dissatisfied after the discovery

13

conference, that party shall draft and file the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement, but that

14

“[a]ll parties who are concerned with the discovery motion shall assist in the preparation of, and

15

shall sign, the Joint Statement.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c). The matters to be addressed in the Joint

16

Statement are set forth in detail in Local Rule 251(c). Local Rule 251(d) adds that “[r]efusal of

17

any counsel to participate in a discovery conference, or refusal without good cause to execute the

18

required joint statement, shall be grounds, in the discretion of the Court, for entry of an order

19

adverse to the party represented by counsel so refusing or adverse to counsel.”

20

////

21

////

22
23
24

1

The parties are instructed to comply with Local Rule 251 even though Local Rules
251(a) and 251(b) indicate that the requirements in Local Rule 251 apply only to motions made
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, and even though plaintiff’s motions
to quash are brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

25
2

26

As provided in Local Rule 101, “‘Counsel’ refers to an attorney and/or a party acting in
propria persona or pro se.”
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The February 22, 2012 hearing on plaintiff’s original motion to quash, Dckt. No. 22,

3

is continued to February 29, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24, so that both of plaintiff’s

4

motions to quash, Dckt. Nos. 22 and 25, can be heard at the same time.

5
6
7
8
9
10

2. The parties are directed to meet and confer either telephonically or in person in an
effort to resolve the discovery disputes without court intervention.
3. If the parties are unable to resolve their disputes, plaintiff shall file a Joint Statement
re Discovery Disagreement on or before February 20, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 13, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3