Hugunin et al v. Rocklin Unified School District et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/22/16 ORDERING that the hearing on defendants' 56 Motion to Compel is CONTINUED to 3/9/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; by 03/02/16, the p arties shall file a joint statement re discovery disagreement that complies with the undersigned's standing order and the Local Rules of this court; and by 03/02/16 the parties shall show cause, in writing, as to why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Local Rules and the order of this court. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JENNIFER HUGUNIN, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-00939 MCE AC (TEMP)

v.

ORDER

ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On January 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to compel and noticed that motion for

19

hearing before the undersigned on February 24, 2016, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). The

20

undersigned’s standing order explains that Local Rule 251(a) “requires the parties to file a Joint

21

Statement re Discovery Disagreement,”1 that the undersigned “strictly enforces the deadline for

22

filing Joint Statements,” and that “[a]ny motion will be removed from calendar if the Joint

23

Statement is not filed at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing.”2 Moreover, that

24
1

25
26
27
28

Local Rule 251(e) excepts the joint statement requirement where there has been a complete and
total failure to respond to the requested discovery or where the only relief sought by the motion is
the imposition of sanctions. Here, the parties’ briefing makes clear that defendant received a
response to requested discovery and defendant’s motion to compel seeks more than just the
imposition of sanctions.
2
This information is available at: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/united-states-magistrate-judge-allison-claire-ac/
1

1

standing order also explains that the undersigned “strictly enforces meet and confer

2

requirements,” and that prior to the filing of the joint statement, “the parties must confer in

3

person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.” (emphasis

4

in original).

5

Here, the parties have not filed a joint statement re discovery disagreement, but instead

6

filed a motion, an opposition and a reply. (ECF Nos. 56, 61 & 62.) Moreover, the parties’

7

briefing fails to detail the parties’ attempts at meeting and conferring. Local Rule 110 provides

8

that the failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order of this court “may be grounds for

9

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

10

inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure

11

to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”).

12

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

13

1. The February 24, 2016 hearing of defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 56) is

14
15

continued to March 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26.
2. On or before March 2, 2016, the parties shall file a joint statement re discovery

16

disagreement that complies with the undersigned’s standing order and the Local Rules of this

17

court; and

18

3. On or before March 2, 2016 the parties shall show cause, in writing, as to why

19

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Local Rules and the order of

20

this court.

21

DATED: February 22, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2