Mir v. Medical Board of California et al

Filing 192

ORDER Denying 190 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Compel Whitney to Answer Deposition Question. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 8/23/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JEHAN ZEB MIR, M.D.,

11

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO COMPEL
WHITNEY TO ANSWER
DEPOSITION QUESTION

13
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA,
et al.,

14
15
16

12cv2340-GPC (DHB)

Defendants.

[ECF No. 190]

17
18
19

On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte

20

motion requesting the Court compel Linda K. Whitney to answer a deposition question.

21

(ECF No. 190.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, and notes that Plaintiff has

22

failed to comply with this Court’s procedures for filing discovery motions. Specifically,

23

Plaintiff has not complied with Section IV.C. of the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s Civil

24

Chambers Rules which requires the filing of a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

25

Dispute.1 Moreover, it appears Plaintiff did not meet and confer with defense counsel prior

26

27

1

28

The Chambers Rules are available at:
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/Lists/Rules/Attachments/17/Bartick%20Civil%20Chambers%20R
ules.pdf
1
12cv2340-GPC-DHB

1

to filing the instant motion. The duty to meet and confer prior to bringing a discovery

2

motion is well established. It is required not only by this Court’s Chambers Rules and the

3

Southern District’s Civil Local Rules, but also by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (a motion to compel discovery “must include a certification that

5

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party filing

6

to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action”); Civ. L.R.

7

26.1(a) (“The Court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ.

8

P, unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.”)

9

In addition, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s rules governing ex parte

10

applications. See Civ. L. R. 83.3(h)(2).

11

Plaintiff has been admonished several times that he must comply with the Court’s

12

rules. See ECF Nos. 146 at 2; 169 at 2-3; 170 at 2-3; 174 at 3-4; 175 at 3. Further, Plaintiff

13

has been specifically and repeatedly warned that the failure to comply will result in motions

14

not being considered. See ECF No. 169 at 3 (“Plaintiff is advised that any future

15

discovery motion filed after the date of this Order will not be considered unless the

16

Court’s rules and procedures are complied with.”). See also ECF Nos. 170 at 2-3; 174

17

at 3-4; 175 at 3.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2016
_________________________
DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
12cv2340-GPC-DHB