Gilliland v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/3/15 ORDERING that the December 9, 2015 hearing on the Chase defendants motion to quash and for aprotective order is VACATED; and the Chase defendants motion to quash and for a protective order (ECF No. 33 ) is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAYRINKIA J. GILLILAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2834 JAM AC

v.

ORDER

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Defendants, sued under the names Chase Home Finance, LLC, Chase Home Finance Inc.,

18

JP Morgan & Company, JP Morgan Chase and Chase Bank USA (the “Chase defendants”), have

19

filed a motion to quash a deposition and for a protective order. ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs have filed

20

an opposition to the motion. ECF No. 40. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned

21

by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).
The parties, all of whom are represented by counsel,1 have not complied with this court’s

22
23

standard instructions regarding discovery disputes, see

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

The Chase defendants are represented by Joseph Duffy & Joseph Quattrocchi, of Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP. Plaintiff is represented by Pamela J. Palmieri, of the United Law Center.
1

1

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

2

Indeed, the motion and opposition make no reference to the Local Rules, this court’s

3

standard instructions, or the federal rules requirement for “certification” of meet and confer

4

activities. The parties’ filings indicate either a complete lack of awareness of the existence of

5

these rules, or a conscious decision to ignore or disobey them. Counsel are reminded of their

6

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

7

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

8

standard instructions regarding discovery disputes.

9

Although this marks the second time the parties have ignored clear instructions from this

10

court,2 it is the first such lapse before the undersigned. Accordingly, the Chase defendants’

11

motion will simply be denied without prejudice to its renewal in proper form. The parties and

12

their counsel are cautioned however, that going forward, they face sanctions for the filing of, or

13

response to, any discovery motion that fails to comply with the applicable rules and instructions.

14

1. Joint Statement

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

in the Joint Statement. Moreover, any party filing other documents in support of or in response to

25

the discovery motion – outside of the Joint Statement – will be subject to sanctions. See also,

26

Local Rule 251(d) (failure to meet or obtain Joint Statement).

27
28

2

See ECF No. 32 (Minute Order noting the parties’ failure to comply with the district judge’s
order to file a joint status report).
2

1

2. Meet and Confer

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

3. Notice of Motion

13

If the Chase defendants renew their motion, they are cautioned to provide the correct

14

location of the hearing, and not to direct respondents to appear at “Courtroom 6” in the Clerk’s

15

Office, as was done in the pending notice of motion. Hearings scheduled before the undersigned

16

should be scheduled for Courtroom 26 on the Eighth Floor of the federal courthouse at 501 I

17

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

18

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

19

1. The December 9, 2015 hearing on the Chase defendants’ motion to quash and for a

20
21

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

22

DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.

23

DATED: December 3, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
3