Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 

CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-01552 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is a “motion for discovery dispute,” duplicitively noticed at ECF 

No.s 56 and 57. The motion, which is before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

302(c)(1), was set for hearing on the papers on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. ECF No. 56. The 

document noticing the motion states: 

The parties have met and conferred regarding the interrogatories and 

requests for production underlying this motion, consistent with Local 

Rule 251(b). CRD’s counsel will work to secure cooperation of 

counsel for Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. in preparing and 

executing a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement under Local 

Rule 251(c) and filing withing fourteen (14) days of the scheduled 

hearing. 

ECF No. 56 at 2. 

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, 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 72 Filed 04/18/24 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 

despite plaintiff’s acknowledgement that one was required. Because plaintiff, the moving party, 

did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement and the joint discovery statement 

requirement, the motion 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). 

 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the “motion for discovery 

dispute” duplicatively noticed at ECF No. 56 and ECF No. 57 is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 17, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 72 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 2