Jones v. TireHub, LLC

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/10/2022 DENYING Without Prejudice 30 Motion to Compel and VACATING the 5/13/2022 Hearing.(Perdue, C.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONSHEA JONES, 12 No. 2:21-cv-0564 TLN DB Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TIREHUB, LLC, 15 ORDER Defendant. 16 17 On April 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing 18 before the undersigned on May 13, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 30.) On 19 April 29, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement pursuant to Local 20 Rule 251. (ECF No. 32.) Review of the Joint Statement finds that plaintiff’s briefing is woefully 21 inadequate and entirely insufficient to resolve the parties’ dispute. 22 In this regard, Local Rule 251(c)(3), requires that: 23 Each specific interrogatory, deposition question or other item objected to, or concerning which a protective order is sought, and the objection thereto, shall be reproduced in full. The respective arguments and supporting authorities of the parties shall be set forth immediately following each such objection. When an objection is raised to a number of items or a general protective order is sought that is related to a number of specific items, the arguments and briefing need not be repeated. 24 25 26 27 28 //// 1 1 Admittedly, the undersigned routinely elects not to enforce this provision when the 2 parties’ briefing nonetheless sufficiently and clearly articulates the discovery items at issue as 3 well as the parties’ respective arguments. Indeed, it is often preferable that the parties not 4 reproduce in full each discovery item at issue. Here, however, “PLAINTIFF’S POSITION,” 5 which contains plaintiff’s substantive argument, consists of less than three pages with just three 6 general assertions: (1) defendant bears the burden of proving the validity of their objections; (2) 7 defendant must produce the identities and contact information for the putative litigants; and (3) 8 sanctions are warranted. (JS (ECF No. 32) at 3-5.) These three pages are supposed to support 9 compelling production of two interrogatories and eight requests for production in this state wide 10 class action seeking unpaid wages. 11 In contrast, defendant’s well-reasoned and thorough argument consists of roughly ten 12 pages. 1 Those pages address specific discovery items at issue, provide ample citations to 13 authority in support of defendant’s position, and asserts specific actions defendant proposed in an 14 attempt to resolve this dispute. While the undersigned values brevity in these matters plaintiff’s 15 portion of the Joint Statement is far too vague and conclusory, and fails to address many of 16 defendant’s arguments with any particularity. One such argument is defendant’s assertion that plaintiff “failed to meet and confer 17 18 regarding several responses prior” to filing this motion. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff failed to specifically 19 address this argument, instead stating simply that the parties “held their Rule 26(f) conference on 20 May 11, 2021,” and then—almost a year later—on April 27, 2022, “again met and conferred 21 telephonically regarding outstanding discovery,” which “was productive[.]” (Id. at 3.) The 22 undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery disputes set forth on the court’s web page 23 explains that parties must meet and confer prior to filing a discovery motion and “must again 24 confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing” prior to the filing of the joint statement. 25 See 26 judge-deborah-barnes-db. 27 28 1 The undersigned has reached no conclusion with respect to the merits of defendant’s argument. 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s April 14, 2022 motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is denied without prejudice 3 4 5 to renewal; and 2. The May 13, 2022 hearing is vacated. DATED: May 10, 2022 6 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/jones0564.mtc.den.brief.ord 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?