Terry et al v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/24/17 ORDERING that the 7/28/17 hearing of Defendants' MOTION for DISCOVERY 63 is CONTINUED to Friday 8/11/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. The parties shall file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement on or before 8/4/17.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENIKA TERRY, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0799 KJM DB v. ORDER WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 On July 5, 2017, at the request of the parties, the undersigned set this matter for an 18 19 Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference on July 11, 2017. (ECF No. 55.) However, review 20 of the parties’ joint letter brief revealed that the nature of the parties’ dispute was not suitable for 21 resolution via an Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference. Accordingly, on July 10, 2017, the 22 Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference was vacated. (ECF No. 57.) On July 14, 2017, the parties filed a purported “Joint Statement re Discovery 23 24 Disagreement,” and defendant filed a motion for leave to take additional depositions.1 (ECF No. 25 59.) Defendant noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on July 21, 2017. 26 However, on July 17, 2017, the hearing of defendant’s motion was vacated due to the court’s 27 28 1 The purported Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement, however, was much more similar to a letter that would be filed in connection with an Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference. 1 1 unavailability. (ECF No. 60.) 2 On July 21, 2017, defendants filed an affidavit claiming that they were “unable to secure 3 the cooperation of counsel for Plaintiffs . . . in the preparation and execution of the required joint 4 statement.” (ECF No. 62 at 2.) That same day, defendants again filed a motion for leave to take 5 additional depositions. (ECF No. 63.) Defendants noticed the motion for hearing before the 6 undersigned on July 28, 2017—only seven days’ notice. 7 Local Rule 251(a) provides that the hearing of a discovery motion shall be calendared for 8 “at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing and service,” or “at least seven (7) days 9 before the scheduled hearing date” if the notice of motion and motion are filed concurrently with 10 the Joint Statement. Moreover, Local Rule 251(d) provides that if counsel for the moving party is 11 unable, “after a good faith effort, to secure the cooperation of counsel for the opposing party in . . 12 . preparing and executing the required joint statement, counsel for the moving party may file and 13 serve an affidavit so stating . . . .” 14 Here, defendants did not file a joint statement along with their notice of motion and 15 motion. Therefore, defendants’ motion should have been noticed for hearing on at least twenty- 16 one days’ notice. Moreover, defendants filed their affidavit alleging that they were unable to 17 secure plaintiff’s cooperation in preparing the joint statement on the same day defendants’ filed 18 their motion. The undersigned finds that this does not constitute a good faith effort. In this 19 regard, defendants should have filed their notice of motion and motion, provided twenty-one 20 days’ notice, and worked with plaintiff on preparing a joint statement.2 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The July 28, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motion for discovery (ECF No. 63) is 23 continued to Friday, August 11, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I 24 Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; 25 //// 26 27 28 2 Although Local Rule 251(a) allows for the hearing of a discovery dispute on only seven days’ notice if the notice of motion and motion are filed concurrently with a joint statement, that provision is not mandatory and may not be invoked unilaterally. 2 1 2 3 2. The parties shall file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement on or before August 4, 2017; and 3. If, after a good faith effort, defendants are unable to secure the cooperation of 4 plaintiffs’ counsel, defendants may file an affidavit in compliance with Local Rule 251(d) on 5 August 4, 2017. 6 Dated: July 24, 2017 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.civil\terry0799.mtc.cont 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?