Opinion
2:22-cv-1855 TLN DB
02-21-2023
GHESAL KABIR, FARYAL KABIR, Plaintiffs, v. CRYSTEL MOCEK, Defendant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 5, 2022, defendant filed a motion for a protective order and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on February 24, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 31.) Defendant's motion seeks, in part, “[t]hat all discovery in this action be stayed until such time as the Court determines that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief[.]” (Id. at 2.) That relief cannot be granted by the undersigned and can only be granted by the assigned District Judge.
The other relief sought by defendant's motion is that plaintiff's counsel “not use such terms as ‘murder,' ‘murderer,' ‘killer,' and like terms when referring to City employees or their actions[.]” (Id.) Putting aside that this seems like a dispute the parties should be able to resolve without the Court's intervention, Local Rule 251 provides that motions related to discovery shall consist of a brief notice of motion and motion “scheduling the hearing date[.]” Local Rule 251(a). “No other documents need be filed at this time.”(Id.) If after complying with the meet and confer requirements a dispute remains the parties shall file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement that contains “[a]ll arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion[.]” Local Rule 251(a)-(c).
The only exception to this provision is where: (1) there has been a complete failure to respond to discovery, or (2) the only relief sought by the motion is sanctions. Local Rule 251(e). Neither of those provisions are applicable here.
This is not the first time the undersigned has advised the parties of this Local Rule. See ECF No. 22.
Here, in addition to the notice of motion and motion, defendant filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support. (ECF No. 31-1.) Plaintiffs then filed an opposition. (ECF No. 37.) To which defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 42.) Thereafter, the parties also filed a Joint Statement. (ECF No. 44.) Defendant's motion, therefore, will be denied without prejudice to renewal of a motion that complies with the Local Rules and the undersigned's Standard Information.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's December 5, 2022 Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 31) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and
2. The February 24, 2023 hearing of defendant's motion is vacated.