Storz Management Company et al v. Carey et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/25/2019 DENYING without prejudice to renewal 54 Motion for Sanctions as amended re 62 Motion for Sanctions and DENYING without prejudice 63 Request to Seal Documents. The 3/29/2019 h earing of plaintiffs' motion is VACATED. If plaintiffs elect to bring a renewed motion for sanctions, plaintiffs shall do so after complying with the Local Rules and the undersigned's Standard Information, specifically with respect to meet and confer obligations; and If plaintiffs elect to bring a renewed motion for sanctions, plaintiffs' motion shall be limited to 15 pages, defendants' opposition shall be limited to 15 pages, and plaintiffs' reply brief shall be limited to 10 pages. (York, M)

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
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0068 TLN DB

ORDER

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

16
17

Defendants.

18
19

On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 54.) The motion

20

is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on March 29, 2019, pursuant to Local Rule

21

302(c)(1). (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiffs have also filed a motion seeking permission to file

22

documents under seal in connection with the motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 63.) Defendants

23

have filed an opposition, (ECF No. 64), and plaintiffs a reply. (ECF No. 65.)

24

Review of plaintiffs’ motion, however, reveals that plaintiffs failed to comply with the

25

meet and confer requirements set out by the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standard

26

Information. In this regard, Local Rule 251(b) provides that a discovery motion “shall not be

27

heard unless [] the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences[.]” “Counsel

28

for all interested parties shall confer in advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the
1

1

hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the differences that are the subject of the

2

motion.” (Id.) Moreover, pursuant to the undersigned’s Standard Information, “[w]ritten

3

correspondence between the parties . . . is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ meet and confer

4

obligations under Local Rule 251(b).” See

5

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate-

6

judge-deborah-barnes-db. And parties must meet and confer in person—distance permitting—

7

prior to the filing of a discovery motion. Id.
Here, according to plaintiffs’ motion and the documents filed in support, it appears that

8
9

the parties most recent meet and confer session occurred on November 19, 2018. (ECF No. 55 at

10

8; ECF No. 58 at 2.) On December 14, 2018, defendants provided supplemental discovery

11

responses. (ECF No. 55 at 8, 15.) On January 17, 2019, plaintiffs sent a letter informing

12

defendants that plaintiffs were “left with no choice but to present a sanctions motions[.]” (ECF

13

No. 56-25.) Plaintiffs filed the motion for sanctions on February 25, 2019, apparently without

14

any further in person or telephonic meet and confer. (ECF No. 54.)

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. Plaintiffs’ February 25, 2019, motion for sanctions (ECF No. 54), as amended on

17

March 4, 2019, (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice to renewal;

18

2. Plaintiffs’ March 12, 2019 request to seal (ECF No. 63) is denied without prejudice;

19

3. The March 29, 2019 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion is vacated;

20

4. If plaintiffs elect to bring a renewed motion for sanctions, plaintiffs shall do so after

21

complying with the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standard Information, specifically with

22

respect to meet and confer obligations; and

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

5. If plaintiffs elect to bring a renewed motion for sanctions, plaintiffs’ motion shall be

1
2

limited to 15 pages, defendants’ opposition shall be limited to 15 pages, and plaintiffs’ reply brief

3

shall be limited to 10 pages.1

4

Dated: March 25, 2019

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Only exhibits and declarations are excluded from counting towards these page limitations.
Pages such as the title page, table of contents, or signature page will be counted towards the
briefing page limitations. Moreover, although exhibits and declarations are excluded from these
limitations, the parties should consider the necessity and practicality of filing over 2,000 pages of
declarations and exhibits as they have done so here, prior to any future filing. Plaintiffs’
declaration of Christopher J. Bakes and supporting exhibits alone consist of more than 1,900
pages. (ECF No. 56.)
3