IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 5, 2012
WHITNEY DUENEZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
CITY OF MANTECA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently pending before the court are plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents and accompanying motion for sanctions, filed on November 5, 2012, and noticed for hearing on December 13, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47.) In addition to noticing these motions for hearing, plaintiffs' counsel also submitted briefing in support of the motions.
Because plaintiffs' motions do not appear to involve a "complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request or order" and the imposition of sanctions is not the only relief sought here, the parties are required to prepare a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251(c) and otherwise comply with Local Rule 251's requirements. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c), (e)-(f). All argument regarding these motions shall be contained in the joint statement, and the court will not consider any other briefing submitted. However, the joint statement may refer to appropriate declarations and exhibits, either already filed or filed concurrently with the joint statement, for any necessary factual material.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. No later than December 3, 2012, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the pending discovery motions (dkt. nos. 46, 47) in accordance with Local Rule 251.
2. Counsel are cautioned that failure to comply with Local Rule 251's requirements may result in the imposition of any appropriate sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.