From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cal. Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 5, 2022
2:20-cv-02482 WBS-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-02482 WBS-AC

10-05-2022

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendant. COUNTY OF AMADOR, a public agency of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections; PATRICK COVELLO, in his official capacity as the Warden of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison, Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pending before the court is plaintiff California Sportfishing Alliance's second ex parte motion to quash the subpoena of Edmund Taylor. ECF No. 78. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).

Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no joint discovery statement has been filed. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)'s joint discovery statement requirement, the motion to compel could 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).

Here, however, the court notes that it already denied an ex parte motion regarding the deposition of Edmund Taylor. ECF No. 74. The motion was addressed on an ex parte basis to avoid unnecessary waste due to time restrictions. The deposition nonetheless had to be rescheduled, and plaintiff now attempts a second bite at the apple, again filing ex parte. Because the court is unpersuaded on the mertis and finds this motion duplicative, it is DENIED with prejudice on the merits.

For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to quash the deposition subpoena of Edmund Taylor (ECF No. 78) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cal. Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 5, 2022
2:20-cv-02482 WBS-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Cal. Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 5, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-02482 WBS-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)