Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 143

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/4/16 ORDERING that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 142 , is GRANTED in part, inasmuch as Defendant's Motion will be DENIED for its violation of Local Rule 251, rather than Local Rule 230; Defendant's Motion for Protective Order ECF No. 138 , is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form under Local Rule 251, and the 1/13/16, 2016 hearing on the motion is VACATED; Defendant's Motion for Protective Order ECF No. 138 is ordered STRICKEN from the docket. Plaintiff's Motion To Compel ECF No. 129 , is unaffected by this order, and remains scheduled for hearing on 1/13/16. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MORGAN HILL CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC ORDER v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Defendant California Department of Education has filed a motion for reconsideration of 19 the court’s December 28, 2015 Minute Order (ECF No. 142). Defendant is correct that the 20 Minute Order incorrectly cited E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 230, since defendant’s Motion For 21 Protective Order (ECF No. 138), was a discovery motion governed by Local Rule 251. 22 However, defendant is not correct in arguing that its Motion for Protective Order complies 23 with Local Rule 251. Accordingly, the hearing on defendant’s Motion for Protective Order will 24 be vacated, and the motion itself will be ordered stricken from the docket. 25 Local Rule 251 calls for the filing of a “notice of motion and motion scheduling the 26 hearing date.” Local Rule 251(a). Defendant has filed this two-page document in accordance 27 with the rule. However, defendant has also filed 102 pages of other documents – a Memorandum 28 of Points and Authorities, declarations and exhibits – all in violation of Rule 251. All documents 1 1 other than the notice and motion are to be included in the Joint Statement. Local Rule 251(c). 2 “All arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of points and 3 authorities supporting or opposing the motion shall be included in this joint statement, and no 4 separate briefing shall be filed.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, no separate documents are 5 permitted, that is, no separate points and authorities, no separate declarations, no separate 6 exhibits. All such documents – from both sides – must be included in a tabbed Joint Statement. 7 The court’s experience has shown that simply vacating the hearing and ordering the 8 parties to comply with the Local Rules has not always been enough to obtain compliance. 9 Therefore, the motion itself will be stricken from the docket, in order to avoid the confusion that 10 would result if a party were to refer to it, rather than – as required – relying solely on the Joint 11 Statement. 12 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 142), is GRANTED in part, 14 inasmuch as defendant’s motion will be denied for its violation of Local Rule 251, rather than 15 Local Rule 230; 16 2. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 138), is DENIED without prejudice 17 to its renewal in proper form under Local Rule 251, and the January 13, 2016 hearing on the 18 motion is VACATED; 19 20 21 3. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 138) is ordered STRICKEN from the docket. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (ECF No. 129), is unaffected by this order, and remains 22 scheduled for hearing on January 13, 2016. 23 DATED: January 4, 2016 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?