Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02485/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02485-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

DEANA FARLEY, Individually and on 

Behalf of the Class,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a 

Nebraska Corporation,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-2485 KJM DB

ORDER

On August 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing 

before the undersigned on August 26, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 32.) On 

August 22, 2022, plaintiff filed an amended motion, continuing the hearing of the motion to

compel to September 2, 2022, along with a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement and notice 

of request to seal. (ECF Nos. 36 & 37.)

The section of the Joint Statement addressing the parties’ meet and confer efforts, 

however, states that—outside of exchanging emails—the parties last met and conferred by 

teleconference on March 24, 2022. (JS (ECF No. 36-1) at 25.) The undersigned’s Standard 

Information re discovery disputes found on to the court’s web page at

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrateCase 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB Document 38 Filed 08/31/22 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

judge-deborah-barnes-db 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. In this regard, meeting and conferring several months prior to the 

filing of the Joint Statement and then exchanging emails does not satisfy the undersigned’s meet 

and confer requirements.1 Moreover, defendant asserts that after providing supplemental 

responses on July 14, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel “did not express dissatisfaction with this response 

and did not re-engage with counsel . . . before filing the present motion.” (JS (ECF No. 36-1) at 

24.) 

Finally, plaintiff argues that the discovery at issue is necessary to respond to defendant’s 

forthcoming effort to “oppose class certification.” (Id. at 8.) To the extent the discovery plaintiff 

seeks is related to class certification, the deadline for the completion of that discovery was August 

15, 2022. (ECF No. 29.) 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 1, 2022 motion to compel (ECF No. 32), amended on August 22, 

2022 (ECF No. 36), is denied without prejudice to renewal; 

2. Plaintiff’s August 22, 2022 notice of request to seal (ECF No. 37) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal; and

3. The September 2, 2022 hearing of plaintiff’s motion is vacated. 

Dated: August 30, 2022

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/farley2485.mtc.den.m&c.ord

1 That document also explains that joint statements filed before the undersigned shall not exceed 

twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits. The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, 

tables of citations, etc., all count toward the twenty-five-page limit. 

Case 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB Document 38 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 2