UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 10, 2009
ROBERT STILLWELL, FUTURELINK CORP., SDP ELECTRONICS, INC., ELECTRONICS MARKETING CORP., PLAINTIFFS,
RADIOSHACK CORP., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT DOCUMENTS PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF [Doc. No. 48.]
On February 9, 2009, Plaintiffs moved to compel the production of documents. The Local Rules require counsel to have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues prior to filing a discovery motion. CivLR 26.1. The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to reduce the cost and delay associated with litigation. See CivLR 16.5(k). If counsel have offices in the same county, must meet in person. If counsel have offices in different counties, they may confer by telephone. Under no circumstances may the parties satisfy the meet and confer requirement by exchanging written correspondence." CivLR 26.1 (emphasis added).
Pursuant to chambers' rules for civil discovery disputes, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration detailing the attempts by counsel to informally resolve the dispute through the meet and confer process. The declaration reveals Plaintiffs' only attempt to "meet" and "confer" with Defendant was to send Defendant a letter. (See Decl. of Diana Donabedian at ¶¶ 6-7.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 26.1. The Court encourages the parties to engage in a meaningful, in person meet and confer on any outstanding discovery issues in the hopes of avoiding further motion practice. In the event a meet and confer between the parties is unable to resolve the current discovery dispute, the Court shall retain the papers already submitted by Plaintiffs and set a briefing schedule for Defendant to file an opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.