Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00028/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00028-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIVE DIAMOND COLD STORAGE, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB

ORDER DISREGARDING DEFENDANT 

GROW SMART’S OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL; 

DENYING DEFENDANT GROW SMART’S 

MOTION TO SEAL AS MOOT

(ECF No. 39, 40)

On October 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses and 

for sanctions. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff set the hearing in this matter for December 4, 2024, 

twenty-one days after the filing of the motion, pursuant to Local Rule 251. In accordance with 

Local Rule 251(a), the parties filed a joint statement re discovery disagreement on November 20, 

2024, fourteen days before the December 4, 2024 hearing. (ECF No. 38.) 

On November 27, 2024, Defendant Grow Smart1filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 

(ECF No. 39) and a notice of request to seal documents contained in a declaration in support of 

the opposition (ECF No. 40).

The Court shall disregard Defendant Grow Smart’s opposition and deny its motion to seal 

as moot. “All arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of 

1 The filings were docketed as an opposition and motion to seal by a dismissed defendant, Five Diamond Cold 

Storage, Inc. Counsel is admonished to choose the title that reflects the actual document filed when docketing an 

item.

Case 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB Document 41 Filed 12/02/24 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

points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion shall be included in [the] joint 

statement, and no separate briefing shall be filed.” L.R. 251(c)(3). Defendants Grow Smart, 

Pedro Arellano-Moya, and Jorge Esteban Fuentes had ample opportunity in the parties’ sixty 

(60) page joint statement to provide their contentions “as to each contested issue, including a

memorandum of each party's respective arguments concerning the issues in dispute and the legal 

authorities in support thereof.” Id. The Local Rules do not provide the right to file both a joint 

statement re discovery disagreement and an opposition, and the Court did not request separate 

briefing. Defendant Grow Smart offers no persuasive reason for the Court to allow for a 

voluminous joint statement and a separate opposition brief with supporting documents in this 

discovery matter. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISREGARDS Defendant Grow Smart’s separately 

filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39). This renders Defendant’s motion 

to seal an exhibit in support of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel as MOOT (ECF No. 

40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB Document 41 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2