(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-1699 DJC AC PS DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 16 Defendants.

18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro se, and this discovery motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D.

20 Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and (21).

21 Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf. ] Here, plaintiffs’ motion states that they have requested documents in discovery “on seven || occasions” but there is no indication that formal discovery requests have been served or that the || parties have properly met and conferred regarding the instant dispute. ECF No. 66. Defendants | contend that they have not been served with any discovery requests, and that plaintiffs have not || attempted to discuss discovery with them by phone or even email. ECF No. 72 at 3.

6 Because plaintiffs did not attach or identify any specific discovery requests to their || motion, the court cannot identify any discovery to compel. Further, because plaintiffs, the | moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement, the motion to || compel discovery will be denied. 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). If plaintiffs wish to serve subsequent discovery motions, they || must identify the specific discovery requests they seek to compel, they must satisfy meet and || confer requirements by attempting to resolve their discovery disputes with defendants. Further, | they must follow all of the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and || the Local Rules of this Court.

16 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to || compel, ECF No. 66, is DENIED.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 | DATE: December 30, 2024 ~ 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE