Freeman v. Y's Fries, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/27/14: The July 3, 2014 hearing is vacated. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 18, 20) is summarily denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 251 and the courts June 10, 2014 order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHERENA FREEMAN,

12

No. 2:13-cv-1641-LKK-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Y’S FRIES, INC.,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
17

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel certain discovery

18

responses, which is noticed for hearing on July 3, 2014. (ECF Nos. 18, 20.)1 After plaintiff filed

19

the motion on June 5, 2014, accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, the court

20

issued the following order on June 10, 2014:
Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with the requirements of Local
Rule 251, which specifically governs motions dealing with
discovery matters. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to familiarize
himself with Local Rule 251, and to meet and confer with
defendant’s counsel in accordance with Local Rule 251(b). If the
parties are unable to resolve their entire discovery dispute
informally, they shall file a joint statement regarding their
discovery disagreement (as narrowed by meet and confer

21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The amended notice of motion listed the hearing date as July 3, 2014 in the caption, but stated
that the hearing date was July 7, 2014 in the body of the notice. (ECF No. 20.) Because July 7,
2014 is not an available motion hearing date, the court’s subsequent June 10, 2014 order clarified
that the hearing was set for July 3, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) No party raised any objection to the July
3, 2014 hearing date.
1

1

discussions) in accordance with Local Rule 251(c) no later than
seven (7) days prior to the noticed hearing. The joint statement
shall comply with all the specific requirements of Local Rule
251(c). The court will only consider arguments raised in the
parties’ joint statement, and plaintiff’s presently-filed memorandum
of points and authorities will be disregarded.

2
3
4

Failure to file a joint statement in compliance with Local Rule 251
by the required deadline will result in the July 3, 2014 hearing
being vacated, a summary denial of the motion to compel, and the
potential imposition of sanctions.

5
6
7

If the parties desire additional time to informally meet and confer
regarding their discovery dispute, the parties may file a stipulation
for continuance of the hearing for the court’s consideration. The
parties shall also promptly notify the court if they have resolved
their discovery dispute by filing a notice of withdrawal of the
motion.

8
9
10
11
12

(ECF No. 23.)
Although the June 26, 2014 deadline to file a joint statement regarding the discovery

13

disagreement has passed, the parties failed to file such a joint statement. As such, the court

14

summarily denies plaintiff’s motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 251 and the court’s

15

June 10, 2014 order.

16

To her credit, defendant’s counsel, Kara Keiser, unilaterally filed a statement regarding

17

the discovery disagreement on June 26, 2014. (ECF No. 25.) That statement and accompanying

18

declaration, with attached e-mail correspondence, represent that plaintiff’s counsel, Darryl Parker,

19

failed to respond to Ms. Keister’s efforts to prepare a joint statement as well as several other

20

meet-and-confer communications involving the subject matter of the motion. (ECF Nos. 25, 25-

21

1, 25-2.) According to Ms. Keister, defendant has already produced at least some of the

22

documents at issue in this motion and is prepared to produce certain other documents once

23

plaintiff’s counsel signs a stipulation for a protective order that was sent to him back in May

24

2014. (Id.) Defendant contends that plaintiff has essentially abandoned the motion and requests

25

that it be summarily denied. As noted above, the court grants that request.

26

The court further observes that any future dilatory conduct, as well as failure to comply

27

with Local Rules and court orders, will result in the imposition of monetary and/or other

28

appropriate sanctions. The fact that Mr. Parker may be in trial until June 27, 2014, as Ms. Keister
2

1

was apparently informed on June 26, 2014, the date that the joint statement was due, is no excuse

2

for failure to comply with counsel’s obligations in this case. Notably, the motion to compel was

3

noticed for hearing on a date chosen by plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, the court’s June 10, 2014

4

order specifically provided that the parties may stipulate to continue the hearing if necessary, and

5

the court has no reason to believe that Ms. Keister would not have stipulated to a reasonable

6

continuance in light of Mr. Parker’s involvement in trial or any changed circumstances in that

7

regard. However, it appears that Mr. Parker never requested a stipulation to such a continuance

8

from Ms. Keister, but instead simply ignored the deadlines and communications from Ms.

9

Keister.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. The July 3, 2014 hearing is vacated.

12

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 18, 20) is summarily denied for failure to

13
14

comply with Local Rule 251 and the court’s June 10, 2014 order.
3. Plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned that any future failure to promptly and diligently meet

15

and confer in good faith, failure to comply with the Local Rules, and failure to comply

16

with court orders will result in the imposition of monetary or any other appropriate

17

sanctions.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2014

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3