Storz Management Company et al v. Carey et al

Filing 245

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/20/2023 DENYING without prejudice defendants' 227 motion for protective order, DENYING without prejudice plaintiffs' 231 , 240 motion to compel, DENYING without prejudice plaintiffs' 232 , 239 motion for sanctions, and VACATING the 6/23/2023 hearing on the parties' motions. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
STORZ MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a
California Corporation, and STORZ
REALTY, INC.,

11
12

Plaintiffs,

13

No. 2:18-cv-0068 DJC DB

ORDER

v.

14

ANDREW CAREY, an individual, and
MARK WEINER, an individual,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

On April 17, 2023, defendants filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 227.) On

20

May 31, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel and a motion for sanctions. (ECF Nos. 231 &

21

232.) These motions are noticed for hearing before the undersigned on June 23, 2023, pursuant to

22

Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF Nos. 233, 239 & 240.) In connection with those motions the parties

23

have filed briefing that violates both the letter and the spirt of the Local Rules and the

24

undersigned’s Standard Information.1
In this regard, the undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery disputes found on to

25
26
27
28

the court’s web page at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all1

The parties’ poor conduct with respect to discovery is, sadly, not new. (ECF No. 222 at 10;
ECF No. 229 at 2.)
1

1

judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-deborah-barnes-db explains that parties must meet and

2

confer prior to filing a discovery motion and “must again confer in person or via telephone or

3

video conferencing” prior to the filing of the Joint Statement. Here, on June 9, 2023, the parties

4

filed a Joint Statement in connection with defendants’ motion for a protective order. (ECF No.

5

234.) It does not appear from the Joint Statement that the parties met and conferred in person or

6

via telephone after the motion was filed but prior to filing the Joint Statement. (Id. at 3-8.) And

7

on June 9, 2023, and June 10, 2023, the parties filed documents styled “[Contested] Joint

8

Statement” which are not signed by defense counsel. (ECF Nos. 237 & 242.) The Local Rules

9

and the undersigned’s Standard Information allow for no such thing.2

10

The undersigned’s Standard Information also explains that joint statements filed before

11

the undersigned shall not exceed twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits.3 Here, the parties have

12

attempted to submit three joint statements for hearing on the same law and motion calendar.

13

Allowing parties to present multiple joint statements on the same calendar would serve to render

14

the page limitation meaningless. Going forward, the parties shall ensure that only one discovery

15

dispute is calendared for hearing before the undersigned on an available law and motion date.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Defendants’ April 17, 2023 motion for protective order (ECF No. 227) is denied

18

without prejudice to renewal;
2. Plaintiffs’ May 11, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 231), amended on June 9, 2023,

19
20

(ECF No. 240), is denied without prejudice to renewal;

21

////

22

2

23
24
25
26
27
28

Part of the parties’ dispute, apparently, concerns defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs filed only a
“Notice of Motion” and not a “Motion.” (ECF No. 237 at 2.) The parties are advised that, while
Local Rule 251(a) provides that a discovery motion may be heard by filing a “notice of motion
and motion,” Local Rule 251(c) explains that “[a]ll arguments and briefing that would be
included in a memorandum of points and authorities . . . shall be included in this Joint Statement,
and no separate briefing shall be filed.” In this regard, little more than a Notice of Motion is
required to put a discovery dispute on calendar and all of the parties’ written argument should be
found in the Joint Statement.
3

The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, tables of citations, etc., all count
toward the twenty-five-page limit.
2

1
2
3
4

3. Plaintiffs’ May 11, 2023 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 232), amended on June 9,
2023 (ECF No. 239) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and
4. The June 23, 2023 hearing of the parties’ motions is vacated.
Dated: June 20, 2023

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.civil\storz0068.mtc.den.m&c.ord

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3