Interstate Fire & Casualty Company v. First Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/22/19 DENYING 34 Motion to Compel without prejudice and the hearing set for 2/27/19 is VACATED. Because the discovery deadline in this case for Phase One is 3/1/19, any renewed motion compel w ould be untimely, 31 . The parties are free to continue to engage in informal negotiations regarding discovery, but the right to seek enforcement by this court has concluded absent a schedule modification made by the district judge in this case. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-01795 KJM AC

ORDER
v.
FIRST SPECIALTY FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Before the court is defendant First Specialty Insurance Company’s motion to compel

20

discovery, filed February 5, 2018, noticed for hearing on February 27, 2019. ECF No. 34. Phase

21

One fact discovery in this matter is to be completed by March 1, 2019. ECF No. 31. Pursuant to

22

Local Rule 251(c), the parties were required to file a joint statement in compliance with the Local

23

Rules and the Standing Orders of Magistrate Judge Claire, located on the court’s website, no later

24

than February 20, 2019.

25

Instead of a joint statement, defense attorney Matthew S. Harvey submitted a declaration

26

claiming an inability to obtain a joint statement. ECF No. 35. The declaration states that the

27

parties met and conferred on February 19, 2019 and made some agreements that may impact the

28

motion to compel. Id. at ¶6. Mr. Harvey states that at 8:27 a.m. on February 20, 2019, the date
1

1

the joint statement was due, he first e-mailed a draft joint statement to plaintiff’s counsel and

2

asked for plaintiff’s counsel to provide their sections of the joint statement the same day. Id. at ¶

3

8. Plaintiff’s counsel stated he was working on it but could not assure Mr. Harvey that his

4

sections would be completed by the end of the day. Id. Mr. Harvey sent an updated joint

5

statement draft to plaintiff’s counsel at 1:37 p.m. that day. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated at 3:37

6

p.m. that plaintiff would not be able to provide its sections until February 21st or 22nd. Id.

7

As the moving party, defendant was required to act early enough to ensure a proper joint

8

statement could be timely filed with the court. At this late date the court will not accept an

9

untimely joint statement, nor will the court consider half a joint statement when it is apparent

10

from Mr. Harvey’s declaration that the parties have been in contact and there is no clear,

11

legitimate reason why defendant had to wait until the eleventh hour to get a draft of the joint

12

statement to plaintiff for its contribution. The present circumstances do not support an exception

13

to the joint statement requirement under Local Rule 251(e).

14

Because the parties did not file a timely joint statement and have therefore failed to

15

comply with Local Rule 251(c), defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 34) is DENIED without

16

prejudice and the hearing set for February 27, 2019 is VACATED. Because the discovery

17

deadline in this case for Phase One is March 1, 2019, any renewed motion compel would be

18

untimely. ECF No. 31. The parties are free to continue to engage in informal negotiations

19

regarding discovery, but the right to seek enforcement by this court has concluded absent a

20

schedule modification made by the district judge in this case. Id.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 22, 2019

23
24
25
26
27
28
2