James v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.

Full title: DIANE JAMES, Plaintiff, v. KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 20, 2013

2:12-cv-1651 WBS AC (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2013)

Opinion

DIANE JAMES, Plaintiff, v. KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-1651 WBS AC United States District Court, E.D. California. May 20, 2013

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Presently pending before the court is defendant's May 20, 2013 motion for discovery. In addition to noticing this motion for hearing, defense counsel also submitted briefing in support of the motion.

         Because defendant's 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 June 12, 2013, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the pending discovery motion 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.