From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Debeaubien v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
2:19-cv-1329 WBS DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1329 WBS DB

11-15-2021

PHILIP DEBEAUBIEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, CHP LIEUTENANT TODD BROWN, CHP SERGEANT REGGIE WHITEHEAD, CHP CHIEF BRENT NEWMAN, Defendants.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On November 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on November 19, 2021, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). Local Rule 251(a) provides that a “hearing may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement . . . is not filed at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date.” Here, the parties' Joint Statement was not filed until November 13, 2021-less than seven days prior to the November 19, 2021 hearing. (ECF No. 115.)

The parties dispute whether plaintiffs' amended motion constituted a simple re-noticing of a prior motion-and thus the November 19, 2021 hearing was timely-or a new motion requiring 21-days' notice. The undersigned need not resolve this dispute given the other errors addressed in this order. However, the undersigned will note that plaintiffs' assertion that “the fact that this joint statement is being filed seven days ahead of the hearing means that the notice is timely” is a misreading of Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 115 at 22.) In this regard, a hearing may be held on 7 days' notice only when “the notice of motion and motion are filed concurrently with the Joint Statement[.]” Local Rule 251(a). Here the notice and Joint Statement were not filed concurrently. Nor was the Joint Statement filed at least seven days prior to the proposed hearing.

Moreover, the parties' Joint Statement is thirty-two pages. The parties are directed to review the undersigned's Standard Information re discovery disputes, available on the court's web page at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-deborah-barnes-db. That document explains that joint statements filed before the undersigned shall not exceed twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits.

The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, tables of citations, etc., all count toward the twenty-five-page limit.

Finally, the undersigned notes that with respect to some of the discovery at issue, plaintiffs state that “[t]he production date for the subpoena . . . is the day before” the November 19, 2021 hearing. (ECF No. 115 at 22.) This production may render “this portion of the motion . . . moot.” (Id.) Presenting an issue in such an uncertain posture renders it difficult for the court to prepare to help the parties and creates the potential for wasted resources.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' November 8, 2021 third amended motion to compel (ECF No. 114) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and

2. The November 19, 2021 hearing is vacated.


Summaries of

Debeaubien v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
2:19-cv-1329 WBS DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Debeaubien v. California

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP DEBEAUBIEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 15, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-1329 WBS DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)