Bohnel et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/1/2021 DENYING Plaintiffs Bohnel and Martinez's 1/6/2021 motion to compel 45 without prejudice to renewal; and VACATING the 2/5/2021 hearing.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHELLE HILL, an individual, and
ARIEL EPSTEIN POLLACK, an
individual,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16

v.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

17
18
19

ERICKA BOHNEL, an individual, and
ROSA MARTINEZ, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

No. 2:17-cv-1604 WBS DB

No. 2:18-cv-0081 WBS DB

ORDER

v.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,

24

Defendant.

25
26

On January 4, 2021, and January 6, 2021, plaintiffs filed motions to compel in these

27

related actions and noticed the motions for hearing before the undersigned on February 5, 2021,

28

////
1

1

pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). On January 29, 2021, the partied filed Joint Statements re

2

Discovery Disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251.

3

The Joint Statements reflect that the parties last meet and confer occurred on December

4

29, 2020, prior to the filing of the motions to compel. However, the undersigned’s Standard

5

Information re discovery disputes set forth on the court’s web page explains that parties must

6

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

7

telephone or video conferencing” prior to the filing of the joint statement. See

8

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

9

judge-deborah-barnes-db.
The failure to comply with the undersigned’s meet and confer requirements is especially

10
11

problematic here as defendant asserts that the parties never met and conferred on several topics of

12

dispute. Moreover, defendant represents that it already agreed to provide plaintiff with a

13

supplemental production prior to the February 5, 2021 hearing. It is difficult for the undersigned

14

to help the parties resolve discovery disputes when those disputes have not been clearly

15

articulated and briefed.

16

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motions to compel will be denied without

17

prejudice to renewal. The parties should engage in further meet and confer, in compliance with

18

the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standard Information. If, after further meeting and

19

conferring a dispute remains, plaintiffs may file a motion to compel and the parties may file a

20

Joint Statement, again ensuring compliance with the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standard

21

Information.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Plaintiffs Hill and Esptein-Pollack’s January 4, 2021 motion to compel (ECF No. 48) is

24

denied without prejudice to renewal;

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1
2
3
4

2. Plaintiffs Bohnel and Martinez’s January 6, 2021 motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is
denied without prejudice to renewal; and
3. The February 5, 2021 hearing is vacated.
Dated: February 1, 2021

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

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.civil/hill1604.m&c.ord

24
25
26
27
28
3