McCarty, et al. v. Humphrey, et al.

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/18/2015 DENYING plaintiffs' 3/9/2015 73 Request for Reconsideration. Counsel for plaintiffs shall forthwith initiate the meet & confer process required by Court's 9/24/2016 25 Scheduling O rder and shall file certification required by that Order no later than 4/6/2015 accompanied, as appropriate, by a Supplement to pending 70 Motion for Summary Judgment. Failure to comply with this Order may result in imposition of sanctions. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES McCARTY, ROBERT
McCARTY,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0431 KJM AC

ORDER

RUSSELL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ March 9, 2015 motion for

18

reconsideration of this court’s March 6, 2015 minute order granting defendants’ request for a

19

three week extension of time to file an opposition to plaintiffs’ February 28, 2015 motion for

20

summary judgment and to continue hearing on the motion for four weeks.

21

Defendants’ request was the first request for an extension of time to file opposition

22

to the summary judgment motion. In the request, defendants adequately describe the reasons for

23

the request and counsel’s unsuccessful efforts to obtain a stipulation from plaintiffs’ counsel. See

24

ECF No. 71 at 4-5.1 The court therefore exercised its discretion and granted the initial request.

25

See Local Rule 144(c). By their request for reconsideration, plaintiffs seek an order vacating the

26
27
28

1

Defendants also sought an extension of time to oppose plaintiffs’ prior motion for summary
judgment. See ECF No. 57. Unlike the current request, the former request did not include any
explanation of efforts to obtain a stipulation from plaintiffs’ counsel. See ECF No. 57.
1

1

minute order and resetting their motion for hearing for March 27, 2015, the date they originally

2

noticed the motion for hearing. Plaintiffs make several contentions in support of their request.

3

For the reason set forth below, plaintiffs’ request will be denied.

4

Review of plaintiffs’ current motion for summary judgment, as well as plaintiffs’

5

initial motion for summary judgment, shows that plaintiffs did not comply with the meet and

6

confer certification requirements set forth in the court’s September 24, 2013 scheduling order.

7

See ECF No. 25 at 4. That order requires counsel to “discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a

8

motion of any kind is filed, including for summary judgment, the briefing is directed only to those

9

substantive issues requiring resolution by the court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or

10

other non-substantive matters during the meet and confer. A notice of motion shall contain a

11

certification by counsel filing the motion that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted,

12

with a brief summary of meet and confer efforts.” ECF No. 25 at 4. The court emphasizes

13

that mere certification alone is insufficient; the certification must contain a brief summary of meet

14

and confer efforts and the court expects those to be conducted in good faith.

15

Failure to comply with a court order may be grounds for imposition of sanctions.

16

See Local Rule 110. In the case of noncompliance with this provision of the scheduling order,

17

sanctions could include denial without prejudice or striking of any motion filed without the

18

required certification. Given that the court has extended the time for hearing on the motion, the

19

court will not impose sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel at this time. Instead, plaintiffs’ counsel will

20

be directed to initiate the meet and confer process with defendants’ counsel forthwith and to file

21

the required certification not later than April 6, 2015, the date on which defendants’ opposition to

22

the pending motion for summary judgment is due. If the meet and confer process narrows the

23

issues tendered for resolution in the motion for summary judgment, counsel shall file a

24

supplement to the pending motion for summary judgment so stating.

25

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. Plaintiffs’ March 9, 2015 request for reconsideration, ECF No. 73, is denied;

27

2. Counsel for plaintiffs shall forthwith initiate the meet and confer process

28

required by the court’s September 24, 2013 scheduling order and shall file the certification
2

1

required by the scheduling order not later than April 6, 2015 accompanied, as appropriate, by a

2

supplement to the pending motion for summary judgment; and

3
4

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DATED: March 18, 2015.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3