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
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?