Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/30/17: Hearing as to 56 MOTION to COMPEL continued to 2/10/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 2/3/2017, the parties shall file a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On or before 2/3/2017, defendants shall file a statement explaining their failure to contribute to the 1/27/2017 joint statement. Plaintiff's 1/27/2017 request to seal 62 is denied without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JOANN MARTINELLI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. 2:15-cv-1733 MCE DB
ORDER
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL
NUTRITIONALS, LLC,
Defendants.
17
18
On January 5, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and set the matter for hearing
19
before the undersigned on January 27, 2017. (ECF No. 56.) On January 18, 2017, the court
20
continued the hearing of plaintiff’s motion to February 3, 2017. (ECF No. 58.) On January 27,
21
2017, plaintiff filed a Statement of Discovery Disagreement. (ECF No. 63.) The statement
22
contains no argument from defendants. Instead, the document states that “Defendants’ lawyers
23
informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they did not want their portion submitted herewith, and that they
24
would file their portion next week.” (Id. at 5.)
25
Local Rule 251(a) provides that at least seven days prior to the hearing of a discovery
26
motion, a “Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement” shall be filed. Local Rule 251(c) further
27
states that “[a]ll parties who are concerned with the discovery motion shall assist in the
28
preparation of, and shall sign, the Joint Statement . . . .” Moreover, the “[r]efusal of any counsel
1
1
to participate in a discovery conference, or refusal without good cause to execute the required
2
joint statement, shall be grounds, in the discretion of the Court, for entry of an order adverse to
3
the party represented by counsel so refusing or adverse to counsel.” Local Rule 251(d). In light
4
of the parties’ failure to cooperate on, and timely file, a joint statement the undersigned will
5
continue the hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel.1
6
Plaintiff has also filed a notice of request to seal documents. (ECF No. 62.) In evaluating
7
requests to seal, the court starts “‘with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.’”
8
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v.
9
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of
10
access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent – indeed, particularly
11
because they are independent – to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have
12
confidence in the administration of justice.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
13
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of
14
showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Id. (citing Kamakana v. City and County of
15
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). However, where the material is, at most,
16
“tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the request to seal may be granted on a showing of
17
“good cause.” Id. at 1097-1101. Moreover, Local Rule 141(b) requires, in relevant part, that a
18
“‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the
19
requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons permitted access to the
20
documents, and all other relevant information.”
21
Here, plaintiff’s request to seal fails to address these requirements.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1. The February 3, 2017 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 56) is
24
continued to February 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street,
25
1
26
27
28
The undersigned is disappointed and troubled by the parties’ failure to collaborate on this
routine task, which has now resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources and a
delay in the resolution of the parties’ dispute. Moreover, if defendants felt compelled to file their
own separate document, that document should have been filed soon after plaintiff filed her
statement of discovery disagreement, potentially allowing the hearing of the motion to compel to
go forward as scheduled.
2
1
Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned2;
2
3
2. On or before February 3, 2017, the parties shall file a joint statement re discovery
disagreement;
4
5
3. On or before February 3, 2017, defendants shall file a statement explaining their failure
to contribute to the January 27, 2017 joint statement; and
4. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2017 request to seal (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice.
6
7
Dated: January 30, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.civil\martinelli1733.cont.hrg.ord
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Any party may appear at the hearing telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance
by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 9304128, no later than 48 hours prior to the hearing; a party may not appear telephonically over a
cellphone.
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?