Flannery Assoc. LLC v. Barnes Family Ranch Assoc., LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FLANNERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00927 TLN AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER BARNES FAMILY RANCH ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel production from defendant Richard Anderson. ECF No. 124. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was taken under submission for consideration on the papers. ECF No. 125.

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 adequate joint discovery statement has been filed. Instead, plaintiff filed a version of a joint statement that was not approved by Anderson (ECF No. 126), and Anderson filed a redlined version of the joint statement in an attempt to show that plaintiff made many last-minute edits to which Anderson did not have a genuine opportunity to respond. ECF No. 127-4. Neither of these documents satisfy the joint | statement requirement, and the court is troubled by the parties’ apparent inability to work || cooperatively to resolve their discovery disagreements, or at a minimum, adequately present those || disagreements to the court.

4 Additionally, Anderson contends that Flannery’s meet and confer efforts, which consisted || of e-mails and one one-hour zoom call during which not all issues were addressed, were || insufficient. ECF No. 127-1. The court agrees. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not || satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement or the joint discovery statement || requirement, 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).

11 Finally, the court notes that the procedural posture of this case is complex, as various || aspects of the case have been stayed at different times. It is not clear to the court that a successful || Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference ever took place between the remaining parties in this case, or that | there are existing case deadlines. The overall case schedule is a matter for the assigned District || Judge. However, the undersigned cautions the parties that she will consider no further discovery || motions unless the submitted joint statement clearly identifies the fact discovery deadline || presently operative this case.

18 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel, || ECF No. 124, is DENIED without prejudice.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 || DATE: September 27, 2024 . .

22 Bettie Clare 3 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE