Robinson v. HD Supply, Inc.

Full title: KRIS ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. HD SUPPLY, INC., Defendant.

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

Date published: Jun 7, 2013

2:12-cv-604 GEB AC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2013)

Opinion

KRIS ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. HD SUPPLY, INC., Defendant. No. 2:12-cv-604 GEB AC United States District Court, E.D. California. June 7, 2013

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the court is plaintiff's March 29, 2013 motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff's non-retained experts (ECF No. 37) and defendant's June 5, 2013 motion to compel the independent medical evaluation of plaintiff (ECF No. 48). In addition to noticing these motions for hearing, counsel has also submitted briefing in support of the motions.

         Because the 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 in either motion, 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 one week before their respective hearing dates, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the pending discovery motions 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.