Blankenchip et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/22/15 ORDERING that Defendant's MOTION for Protective Order 21 is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper format; and The hearing on this Motion, currently scheduled for 7/29/15 is VACATED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY BLANKENCHIP, et al.,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2309 WBS AC

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the court is defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s June 18, 2015, Motion for

18

Protective Order, ECF No. 21. The motion does not comply with the Local Rules of this court,

19

and will therefore be denied without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.

20
21
22
23
24

Motions for protective orders are governed by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 251, which
provides:
All arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a
memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the
motion shall be included in this joint statement, and no separate
briefing shall be filed.

25

Local Rule 251(c) (emphasis added). Defendant has filed separate “arguments and briefing” in

26

support of the motion, rather than including them in the Joint Statement, in violation of this rule.

27

This has apparently prompted plaintiff to file his own separate brief opposing the motion. Both

28

briefs are inappropriate and in violation of the Local Rule 251(c).
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendant’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 21), is DENIED without prejudice

3
4
5

to its renewal in proper form; and
2. The hearing on this motion, currently scheduled for July 29, 2015, is VACATED.
DATED: July 22, 2015

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2