Opinion
2:15-cv-0165 MCE AC P
11-17-2022
BRIAN SPEARS, Plaintiff, v. EL DORADO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 19, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). ECF No. 90. The motion asks the court to compel defendant Kurk to respond to several discovery requests. Defendant Kurk has not filed a response to the motion, and the twenty-one-day period within which to do so has expired. See Local Rule 230(1).
Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion ....” On June 28, 2021, defendant Kurk was informed that motions concerning discovery were to be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 230(1). See ECF No. 45 at 3 (court's service order). At that time, she was also informed that pursuant to Local Rule 230(1), a failure to timely oppose a motion could be deemed a waiver of opposition to it.
Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” In the service order issued June 28, 2021, defendant Kurk was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules could result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. See ECF No. 45 at 5.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order, defendant Kurk shall file a response plaintiff's motion to compel. Failure to file a response will be deemed a statement of non-opposition and may result in a grant of plaintiff's motion to compel in its entirety.