Storz Management Company et al v. Carey et al

Filing 260

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/15/2023 DENYING plaintiff's 246 motion to compel and 247 amended motion for sanctions, and VACATING the 8/18/2023 hearing on plaintiff's motion. (Yin, K)

Case 2:18-cv-00068-DJC-DB Document 260 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

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

13

ORDER

v.

14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0068 DJC DB

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

16
Defendants.

17
18

On June 23, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel and for issuance of monetary

19
20

sanctions. (ECF No. 246.) On July 15, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery

21

Disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251 in connection with that motion. (ECF No. 250.) That

22

Joint Statement reflected that the parties failed to comply with the applicable meet and confer

23

requirements. Accordingly, on July 25, 2023, the undersigned issued an order: (1) continuing the

24

hearing of plaintiffs’ motion to compel to August 18, 2023; (2) ordering the parties to meet and

25

confer on or before August 4, 2023; and (3) to either withdraw the motion to compel or file an

26

updated Joint Statement on or before August 11, 2023. (ECF No. 257.)

27

////

28

////
1

Case 2:18-cv-00068-DJC-DB Document 260 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 2
1

On August 11, 2023, the parties filed an Updated Joint Statement. (ECF No. 259.) Local

2

Rule 251(c) requires that each discovery item “objected to . . . be reproduced in full,” with the

3

“respective arguments and supporting authorities of the parties . . . set forth immediately

4

following each such objection.” The August 11, 2023 Updated Joint Statement does not comply

5

with this requirement. Instead, the Joint Statement makes vague and conclusory arguments

6

concerning “seven unresolved Request[s].” (ECF No. 259 at 3.) For example, plaintiff states that

7

plaintiff “offered to withdraw Requests 42 and 43 if Defendants would comply with Requests 44-

8

45[.]” (Id.) No further information is provided as to the nature of these requests or defendants’

9

objections.

10

On June 23, 2023, plaintiffs also filed an amended notice of motion and motion for order

11

to show cause. (ECF No. 247.) Plaintiffs noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned

12

on August 18, 2023. (Id. at 1.) On August 4, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Statement in

13

connection with that motion. (ECF No. 258.) Local Rule 251(c)(1) requires that the Joint

14

Statement “specify with particularity . . . the details of the [meet and confer] conference or

15

conferences.” Here, the August 4, 2023 Joint Statement does not contain such information. To

16

the contrary, defendants assert that plaintiffs “have made no attempt to meet and confer regarding

17

this motion since filing the original notice of motion on May 11th.” (ECF No. 258 at 2, 21.)

18

Plaintiffs do not dispute defendants’ assertion.1

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiffs’ June 23, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 246) is denied;

21

2. Plaintiffs’ June 23, 2023 amended motion for sanctions (ECF No. 247) is denied; and

22

3. The August 18, 2023 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion is vacated.

23

Dated: August 15, 2023

24
25

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

26
27
28

The parties’ inability or unwillingness to comply with the basic provisions of the Local Rules
and the undersigned’s Standard Information has been well established. See ECF Nos. 222 at 10;
ECF No. 229 at 2: ECF No. 245; ECF No. 257.
2
1