Opinion
21cv1675-JAH(LR)
12-13-2022
BRIAN KAKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 77]
On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel Discovery #2.” (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents responsive to his Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Production (“RFPs”) No. 1-4. (See Id. at 2-4; see also ECF No. 77-1.) Plaintiff alleges that he received Defendants' discovery responses to the RFPs at issue, but deemed them insufficient. (ECF No. 77 at 2.) He further states that “[i]mmediately after receiving response[,] I wrote a letter to 1 counsel attempting to resolve this matter & told counsel, I will file a motion to compel after 2 weeks should I not hear from you.” (Id.)
The RFPs at issue seek the following: “Any and All Reports/Audits RE: 602 & Appeals Process” [RFP No. 1]; “Any and All Reports/Audits RE: Staff Misconduct” [RFP No. 2]; “Any and All Reports/Audits RE: Kitchen, health & safety” [RFP No. 3]; and “Any and All Reports/Audits RE: Medical Complaints” [RFP No. 4]. (ECF No. 77-1 at 2-5.)
On December 7, 2022, the Court held a video Case Management Conference in this case. (See ECF No. 79.) The Court advised Plaintiff that he is required to comply with this district's Civil Local Rules and this Court's Civil Chambers Rules before filing any discovery motions. Civil Local Rule 26.1.a provides that “[t]he Court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.” (See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 26.1.a.) The Rule further provides that “[u]nder no circumstances may the parties satisfy the meet and confer requirement by exchanging written correspondence.” (Id.)
Additionally, the Court's Civil Chambers Rules require the following with respect to discovery disputes:
Meet and Confer Requirement. Before contacting the Court regarding a discovery dispute, counsel must thoroughly meet and confer regarding all disputed issues pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26.1.a. The parties must meet and confer in person, by videoconference, or by telephone, and may not satisfy the meet and confer requirement by exchanging e-mails or other written correspondence.(See Hon. Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. Civ. Chambers Rules § IV.A.) Notably, the Court's Civil Chambers Rules also state the following:
Informal Discovery Dispute Conference. If the dispute is not resolved in the meet and confer process, the moving party must e-mail chambers at efilerodriguez@casd.uscourts.gov and request a conference to discuss the discovery dispute. The e-mail must include: (1) at least three proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties' position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the e-mail.
No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its telephonic discovery conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. The Court will strike any discovery motion that does not comply with this process.2 (See Id. § IV.C.)
During the December 7, 2022 Case Management Conference, the Court inquired whether the parties had fully exhausted their meet and confer efforts with respect to this dispute, and was advised that the parties had not. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 26.1.a and this Court's Civil Chambers Rules § IV.A, C. Although the Court has authority to strike Plaintiff's motion, the Court DENIES AS PREMATURE Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel Discovery #2” [ECF No. 77]. Plaintiff's motion is denied WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the parties cannot resolve the discovery dispute at issue after meeting and conferring, defense counsel is to contact the Court in the manner outlined in the Court's Civil Chambers Rules and request a conference to discuss the discovery dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3