Schrupp v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/5/18 DENYING 33 Motion to Compel and VACATING February 8, 2018 hearing. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL SCHRUPP

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-636-WBS-KJN
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. (ECF No.
33.) For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

20

According to the parties’ joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement, plaintiff

21

provided defendant with its first draft of the joint statement on January 31, 2018, and a revised

22

version with additional arguments on February 1, 2018, at 12:30 p.m., the day that the parties’

23

joint statement was due to be filed in court pursuant to Local Rule 251. Review of the parties’

24

50-page joint statement makes clear that defendant Wells Fargo had insufficient time to properly

25

respond to some of the issues raised by plaintiff, and that the parties have not yet fully exhausted

26

the informal meet-and-confer process with respect to several of the issues. Joint statements

27

regarding discovery disagreements contemplate the parties thoroughly discussing their

28

disagreements and participating in a cooperative drafting process over several days to present
1

1

rem
maining issu to the court in a conc and well
ues
cise
l-articulated manner. A joint statem is not
d
ment

2

int
tended to be a document hastily prep
e
t
pared by cop
pying and pa
asting each s
side’s argum
ments into a

3

sin docume at the last minute. Su briefing does not pro
ngle
ent
uch
omote prope resolution of the
er
n

4

iss
sues, and am
mounts to a waste of judicial resource
w
es.

5

Accord
dingly, the court DENIE the motion without pr
c
ES
n
rejudice, and VACATES the
d
S

6

Fe
ebruary 8, 20 hearing. The parties shall prope meet and confer prio to filing an further
018
s
erly
d
or
ny

7

discovery mot
tion, which shall fully co
s
omply with t letter and spirit of Lo Rule 25
the
d
ocal
51.

8

Fu
urthermore, in the interes of avoidin unnecessa briefing a expense the parties are also
i
st
ng
ary
and
e,

9

str
rongly encou
uraged to use the undersigned’s proc
e
cedures for i
informal tele
ephonic disco
overy

10

co
onferences, if appropriate 1
f
e.

11

IT IS SO ORDERE
S
ED.

12

This or
rder resolves ECF No. 33.
s

13

Da
ated: Februa 5, 2018
ary

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See http://ww
S
ww.caed.usc
courts.gov/ca
aednew/inde
ex.cfm/judge
es/all-judges
s/5046/.
2