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