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)
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?