Akkawi v. Sadr

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIANA AKKAWI, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01034 MCE AC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER KASRA SADR, et al., 15 Defendants.

18 Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for a protective order. ECF No. 40 (duplicatively filed at ECF No. 37). The matter was taken under submission on the papers. ECF No. 41. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).

22 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.

25 Additionally, there is a dispute as to whether the parties have met and conferred. Plaintiffs argue that “none of the Defendants and their counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer before the Motion was filed.” ECF No. 44 at 13. Defense counsel submitted a declaration stating plaintiffs’ statement is untrue and that he discussed the issues over telephone and that, after | initially agreeing to mediate the issues, plaintiffs’ counsel declined to further meet and confer.

2 | ECF No. 46-1 at 2.

3 As the moving party, it is defendants’ obligation to ensure meet and confer requirements || are met and that a joint statement is filed. Because defendants, the moving party, did not satisfy || the joint discovery statement requirement and it is unclear that Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and || confer requirement were met (no specific information regarding meet and confer attempts or || supporting documents were provided), the motion to compel discovery will 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).

1] For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice, 13 and 14 2. The duplicative motion at ECF No. 37 is VACATED as MOOT.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 | DATE: July 1, 2022 ~ 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE