The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION
[DOC. NO. 81]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order for Inspection and Production of Documents. (Doc. No. 81.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting that Defendants produce a copy of Plaintiff's jury trial transcript, and a copy of a DVD that contains photographs and audio recordings. (Doc. No. 42 at 4-5.) On June 12, 2012, Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, arguing that the meet and confer requirement was not satisfied prior to filing the Motion, and that Plaintiff's discovery request was moot. (Doc. No. 49.) On July 3, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on the grounds that the Motion was premature due to the parties' failure to meet and confer. (Doc. No. 50 at 1-2.) The Court also determined Plaintiff's Motion to be moot because Defendants had already provided, or attempted to provide, the requested discovery.
On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel, again requesting that Defendants produce his jury trial transcript, along with additional information related to medical care after the incident. (Doc. No. 53 at 1-2.) On July 30, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion, finding that no new facts were asserted and that the parties once again failed to meet and confer. (Doc. No. 56 at 4.)
On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, which is essentially a Motion for Reconsideration, and was filed nearly six months after the close of fact discovery. (Doc. No. 57 at 2.) Despite numerous admonishments by this Court to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing a Motion to Compel, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion without making any effort to meet and confer with Defendants. (Doc. No. 85 at 2.)
A. Motion for Reconsideration
Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that when a Motion "is made for the same relief in whole or in part upon the same or any alleged different state of facts," the moving party must present the Court with an affidavit of a party or witness or certified statement of an attorney which sets forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application. CivLR 7.1(i)(1). The motion for reconsideration must also include the "new or different facts and circumstances [which] are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Id.
B. Meet and Confer Requirement
Civil Local Rule 26.1(a) requires the moving party to arrange a meet and confer before the Court will entertain a discovery motion. CivLR 26.1(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that a motion to compel disclosure or discovery "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The Court expects strict compliance with the meet and confer requirement, as it is the experience of the Court that the vast majority of disputes can be resolved by means of that process. This Court's Chambers Rules require counsel to "thoroughly meet and confer," and "make every effort in good faith to resolve all disputes without the necessity of court intervention." (Judge Gallo's Chambers Rule IV.)