Opinion
2:22-cv-00728 MCE AC
04-12-2023
ROBERT MCCOMMON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARLISLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel. ECF No. 25. 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, other than a few e-mails agreeing to extensions of time (ECF Nos. 25-1 at 3, 25-3, 25-4), there is no indication that the parties have properly met and conferred regarding the instant dispute.
Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)'s meet and confer 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 plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 25, is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.