Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01837/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBY CHACKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN 

NO. 3,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1837 JAM DB

ORDER

On December 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for 

hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 12.) However, 

plaintiff noticed the motion for hearing on an unavailable date. (ECF No. 13.) Accordingly, on 

December 27, 2019, plaintiff re-noticed the motion to compel for hearing before the undersigned. 

(ECF No. 17.) The motion is set to be heard on February 14, 2020. (ECF No. 18.) In 

compliance with Local Rule 251 the parties filed a joint statement re discovery dispute on January 

31, 2020. (ECF No. 19.) 

As explained in the undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery disputes set forth on 

the court’s web page, joint statements filed before the undersigned shall not exceed twenty-five 

////

///

Case 2:19-cv-01837-DAD-DB Document 22 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

pages, excluding exhibits.

1

 See http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/united-states-magistrate-judge-deborah-barnes-db. Here, the parties’ joint statement 

exceeds the undersigned’s twenty-five page limit.

Moreover, the undersigned’s Standard Information also explains that parties must meet 

and confer prior to filing a discovery motion and “must again confer in person or via telephone or 

video conferencing” prior to the filing of the joint statement. See

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistratejudge-deborah-barnes-db. Here, the joint statement asserts that the parties’ last met and conferred

on December 13, 2019—prior to the filing of the motion to compel. (ECF No. 19 at 9.) The joint 

statement does not reflect that the parties meet and conferred again thereafter prior to filing the 

joint statement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion to compel (ECF No. 12), re-noticed on 

December 27, 2019, (ECF No. 17) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and 

2. The February 14, 2020 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel is vacated. 

Dated: February 10, 2020

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.civil\chacko1837.pg.limit.ord

 

1 The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, tables of citations, etc., all count 

toward the twenty-five-page limit. 

Case 2:19-cv-01837-DAD-DB Document 22 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2