Mayfield v. Orozco, et al.

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/3/2016 ORDERING that the 6/8/2016 hearing on the Motions to Compel Discovery Responses 75 , 76 filed by both parties is VACATED; and the Chase defendants' motion to quash and for a protective order 33 is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES
ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. TERRY
MAYFIELD,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM AC

ORDER

v.
IVAN OROZCO, SCOTT JONES, JAMES
LEWIS, RICK PATTISON, COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEM, DR.
GREGORY SOKOLOV, DR. CHARLES
SCOTT, DR. ROBERT HALES, DOES 15,
Defendants.

20
21

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to

22

Interrogatories from defendants Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison and the County of

23

Sacramento. ECF No. 76. Defendants University of California Davis Health System, Sokolov

24

and Haleshave, in turn, filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to

25

Interrogatories from plaintiff James J. Mayfield. ECF 75. Both parties have filed numerous

26

documents in support of and opposition to the Motions. ECF Nos 86-94, 96. Among those

27

documents is a Joint Statement of the parties regarding the dispute. ECF No. 87. This discovery

28

matter was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).
1

1

The parties, all of whom are represented by counsel, have not complied with this court’s

2

standard instructions regarding discovery disputes, see

3

www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-

4

allison-claire-ac (“Standard Information”), nor with this court’s Local Rules governing discovery

5

disputes, see E.D. Cal. R. 251 (discovery matters), nor with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

6

governing requests for protective orders, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

7

The parties’ filings indicate they are aware of Local Rule 251 but have either failed to

8

understand it or made a conscious decision to ignore it. Counsel are reminded of their obligation

9

to familiarize themselves with, and to comply with, the applicable Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules governing discovery matters, and the undersigned’s standard

11

instructions regarding discovery disputes.

12

In this instance, the Court will go no further than to remove the pending matters from its

13

June 8, 2016 calendar without prejudice to their renotice at a proper time and in proper form. The

14

parties and their counsel are cautioned however, that going forward, they face sanctions for the

15

filing of, or response to, any discovery motion that fails to comply with the applicable rules and

16

instructions.

17

1. Joint Statement

18

The moving party is required to “draft and file a document entitled ‘Joint Statement re

19

Discovery Disagreement,’” which is to be prepared with, and signed by, all parties who are

20

concerned with the discovery motion. Local Rule 251(c). Other than the very brief notice of

21

motion to be filed by the movant, this Joint Statement is the only document that should be filed in

22

regard to any renewed discovery motion. “All arguments and briefing that would otherwise be

23

included in a memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion shall be

24

included in this joint statement, and no separate briefing shall be filed.” Local Rule 251(c).

25

The parties are advised that the undersigned will not consider any declarations,

26

memoranda or other documents (including any already filed on the docket), that are not included

27

in or attached as exhibits to the Joint Statement. Moreover, any party filing other documents in

28

support of or in response to the discovery motion – outside of the Joint Statement – will be
2

1

subject to sanctions. See also, Local Rule 251(d) (failure to meet or obtain Joint Statement). The

2

parties are also reminded that courtesy copies of all Joint Statements, with declarations, exhibits

3

and other attachments tabbed, are mandatory and should be delivered to the Clerk of Court at

4

least seven (7) days before a scheduled hearing. See Standard Information at 2.

5

2. Meet and Confer

6

The parties must meet and confer in an attempt to resolve their differences. E.D. Cal. R.

7

251(b). Any renewed motion “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith

8

conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute

9

without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (emphasis added).

10

The parties are advised that the undersigned strictly enforces meet and confer

11

requirements. Written correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to

12

satisfy the parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a

13

Joint Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an

14

attempt to resolve the dispute. See www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-

15

judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-allison-claire-ac.

16

3. Notice of Motion

17

If the parties renew their motions, they are reminded that hearings scheduled before the

18

undersigned should be scheduled for Courtroom 26, on the Eighth Floor of the federal courthouse

19

at 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

20

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

21

1. The June 8, 2016 hearing on the Motions to Compel Discovery Responses filed by

22
23

both parties is VACATED; and
2. The Chase defendants’ motion to quash and for a protective order (ECF No. 33) is

24

DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.

25

DATED: June 3, 2016

26
27
28
3