United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT CITY OF
FRESNO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FROM JULY 20, 2016 TO AUGUST 3,
2016 (ECF NOS. 32, 33, 34, 35)
22, 2016, Defendant City of Fresno (“Defendant”)
filed a motion to compel further responses to special
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
(ECF No. 32.) Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in
the amount of $2, 220.00, which represents the fees and costs
associated with bringing and presenting the motion to compel.
(ECF No. 32.)
13, 2016, Defendant filed a reply to non-opposition of the
motion to compel. (ECF No. 34.) On that same date,
Defendant's counsel, Allen Christiansen, filed a
declaration pursuant to Local Rule 251(d) that was intended
to supplement his June 21, 2016 Local Rule 251(d)
declaration. (ECF No. 34-1.) On July 13, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed an objection to Defendant's motion to compel and
requested that the motion to compel be taken off calendar.
(ECF No. 35.) Attached to Plaintiffs' objection was a
declaration by Plaintiffs' counsel, Kevin Little. (ECF
No. 35 at 4.)
reasons set forth below, the Court vacates the July 20, 2016
hearing on Defendant's motion to compel and orders the
parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute
before July 27, 2016. If the parties are unable to resolve
the discovery dispute, they shall file a joint statement re
discovery dispute on or before July 27, 2016. The hearing on
Defendant's motion to compel is continued to August 3,
2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9.
apparent from the parties' competing declarations that
there has been a breakdown in communications. However, the
parties are still required to comply with the Court's
scheduling order and the Court's Local
Local Rule 230
alleges that, pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), any opposition
to the motion to compel was due on or before July 6, 2016.
(ECF No. 34 at 2.) However, Local Rule 230(c) does not apply
to the instant motion to compel. Local Rule 251(f) provides
that “[b]y reason of the notice provisions set forth in
(a) and (e), the provisions of L.R. 230 shall not apply to
motions and hearings dealing with discovery matters.
Therefore, Plaintiffs did not have to file an opposition in
accordance with Local Rule 230(c).
Failure to File Joint Statement
initial matter, the Court notes that the parties failed to
prepare and file a joint statement concerning Defendant's
motion to compel. Local Rule 251 requires that the parties
submit a joint statement at least seven days before the
scheduled hearing on the motion to compel. However, Local
Rule 251(d) provides that counsel for the moving party may
file and serve an affidavit if he or she is “unable,
after a good faith effort, to secure the cooperation of
counsel for the opposing party in arranging the required
conference, or in preparing and executing the required joint
statement.” Here, Defendant's counsel filed two
affidavits pursuant to Rule 251(d) regarding the failure to
meet and confer. (ECF Nos. 32-1, 34-1.) Therefore, the Court
will review the parties' claims regarding the failure to
meet and confer.
Failure to Meet and Confer
alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to meet and confer after
multiple requests. Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
adverse to Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs' ...