Mendez v. Optio Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying as moot 45 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 47 Motion for Discovery. The Court DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion to File Documents Under Seal is MOOT. The Parties have five (5) days to meet and confer, and refile their Motion with the Court on or before 10/16/2017. Failure to meet and confer in this regard will result in a waiver of plaintiffs objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 10/10/2017. (acc)

1

2

la OCT I 0 PH 3: 5 f

3

4
5

6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

12

SARAH MENDEZ, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,

13
14
15

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01882-AJB-KSC

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 47)

Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
AS MOOT [Doc. No. 45]

OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC, dba
QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
Dispute and Motion to File Documents Under Seal. [Doc. Nos. 47, 45]. For the reasons
discussed in greater detail below, the Court DENIES the parties' Joint Motion for failure
to abide by Local Rules and this Court's Prior Order. Plaintiff's Motion to File Exhibit
Under Seal is now MOOT.

DISCUSSION
The Scheduling Order in this case states in part as follows: "All discovery motions
must be filed ... only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached an impasse
with regard to the particular issue." [Doc. No. 44, at p. 2.] Local Rule 26.l(a) also states
that: "The court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ.

28

3: 16-cv-O 1882-AJB-KSC

1 P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues."
2

CivLR 26.l(a). Finally, this Court's Chambers' Rules require the parties include the

3

"exact response to the request by the responding party." Chambers' Rules V(D).

4

Here, the parties did not abide by any of the aforementioned rules. Plaintiff merely

5

states: "Plaintiff still maintains these [supplemental responses plaintiff received on

6

September 25] that change objections are deficient. On September 27, 2017, Defendant

7

provided for the first time a privilege log and a redaction log. Again, Plaintiff maintains

8

these are deficient." [Doc. No. 47-1, at p. 1]. The parties have not met and conferred to

9

discuss whether defendant's supplemental responses are sufficient and would obviate the

10
11

need to file the instant Motion.
The parties also did not follow this Court's Chamber's Rule V(D) by failing to

12

provide the Court with all responses defendants made to the contested requests.

13

Moreover, purely from a practical standpoint, the Court cannot now determine the

14

parties' dispute without the defendant's supplemental responses. [Doc. No. 47, at p. 1].

15

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

16

Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion to File Documents Under Seal is MOOT. The Parties

17

have five (5) days to meet and confer, and refile their Motion with the Court on or before

18

October 16, 2017. Failure to meet and confer in this regard will result in a waiver of

19

plaintiffs objections.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 201 7

22
23

Hon. Kar·
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2

3: 16-cv-O 1882-AJB-KSC