Opinion
2:21-cv-01045 DAD AC
07-25-2023
ELIESA RENE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SOLANO, SHARON L.COLLINS, CYNTHIA TAN, CHRISTINE L.VETTER, ROBINSON YU, SOLANODIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, BAY IMAGINGCONSULTANTS, Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the court is defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging's motion to compel discovery from plaintiff. ECF No. 51. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).
Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the parties' meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf.
Here, the moving party wrote in its motion, “On March 27, 2023, Counsel for Defendant sent a letter to Counsel for Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff's responses and production of documents, which was a good faith attempt to meet and confer on the part of Defendant prior to filing this Motion to Compel.” ECF No. 51-1 at 2. Sending a single letter is not, in fact, an adequate attempt to meet and confer. It does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 251(b) or the undersigned's standing orders. Additionally, Local Rule 251(b) and (c) require that parties submit a joint statement to brief discovery motions. Here, the moving party submitted substantive briefing and there is no indication that a joint statement is intended to follow.
Because defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)'s meet and confer requirement or joint statement requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing).
For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to compel, ECF No. 51, is DENIED without prejudice and the hearing set for August 23, 2023 (ECF No. 53) is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.