Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01641-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERENA FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

Y’S FRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1641-LKK-KJN

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel certain discovery 

responses, which is noticed for hearing on July 3, 2014. (ECF Nos. 18, 20.)1 After plaintiff filed 

the motion on June 5, 2014, accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, the court 

issued the following order on June 10, 2014:

Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with the requirements of Local 

Rule 251, which specifically governs motions dealing with 

discovery matters. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to familiarize 

himself with Local Rule 251, and to meet and confer with 

defendant’s counsel in accordance with Local Rule 251(b). If the 

parties are unable to resolve their entire discovery dispute 

informally, they shall file a joint statement regarding their 

discovery disagreement (as narrowed by meet and confer 

 

1

The amended notice of motion listed the hearing date as July 3, 2014 in the caption, but stated 

that the hearing date was July 7, 2014 in the body of the notice. (ECF No. 20.) Because July 7, 

2014 is not an available motion hearing date, the court’s subsequent June 10, 2014 order clarified 

that the hearing was set for July 3, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) No party raised any objection to the July 

3, 2014 hearing date.

Case 2:13-cv-01641-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 3
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

discussions) in accordance with Local Rule 251(c) no later than 

seven (7) days prior to the noticed hearing. The joint statement 

shall comply with all the specific requirements of Local Rule 

251(c). The court will only consider arguments raised in the 

parties’ joint statement, and plaintiff’s presently-filed memorandum 

of points and authorities will be disregarded. 

Failure to file a joint statement in compliance with Local Rule 251 

by the required deadline will result in the July 3, 2014 hearing 

being vacated, a summary denial of the motion to compel, and the 

potential imposition of sanctions.

If the parties desire additional time to informally meet and confer 

regarding their discovery dispute, the parties may file a stipulation 

for continuance of the hearing for the court’s consideration. The 

parties shall also promptly notify the court if they have resolved 

their discovery dispute by filing a notice of withdrawal of the 

motion.

(ECF No. 23.)

Although the June 26, 2014 deadline to file a joint statement regarding the discovery 

disagreement has passed, the parties failed to file such a joint statement. As such, the court 

summarily denies plaintiff’s motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 251 and the court’s 

June 10, 2014 order.

To her credit, defendant’s counsel, Kara Keiser, unilaterally filed a statement regarding 

the discovery disagreement on June 26, 2014. (ECF No. 25.) That statement and accompanying 

declaration, with attached e-mail correspondence, represent that plaintiff’s counsel, Darryl Parker, 

failed to respond to Ms. Keister’s efforts to prepare a joint statement as well as several other

meet-and-confer communications involving the subject matter of the motion. (ECF Nos. 25, 25-

1, 25-2.) According to Ms. Keister, defendant has already produced at least some of the 

documents at issue in this motion and is prepared to produce certain other documents once 

plaintiff’s counsel signs a stipulation for a protective order that was sent to him back in May 

2014. (Id.) Defendant contends that plaintiff has essentially abandoned the motion and requests 

that it be summarily denied. As noted above, the court grants that request. 

The court further observes that any future dilatory conduct, as well as failure to comply 

with Local Rules and court orders, will result in the imposition of monetary and/or other 

appropriate sanctions. The fact that Mr. Parker may be in trial until June 27, 2014, as Ms. Keister 

Case 2:13-cv-01641-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

was apparently informed on June 26, 2014, the date that the joint statement was due, is no excuse

for failure to comply with counsel’s obligations in this case. Notably, the motion to compel was 

noticed for hearing on a date chosen by plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, the court’s June 10, 2014 

order specifically provided that the parties may stipulate to continue the hearing if necessary, and 

the court has no reason to believe that Ms. Keister would not have stipulated to a reasonable 

continuance in light of Mr. Parker’s involvement in trial or any changed circumstances in that 

regard. However, it appears that Mr. Parker never requested a stipulation to such a continuance 

from Ms. Keister, but instead simply ignored the deadlines and communications from Ms. 

Keister. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The July 3, 2014 hearing is vacated. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 18, 20) is summarily denied for failure to 

comply with Local Rule 251 and the court’s June 10, 2014 order.

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned that any future failure to promptly and diligently meet 

and confer in good faith, failure to comply with the Local Rules, and failure to comply 

with court orders will result in the imposition of monetary or any other appropriate 

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 27, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-01641-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 3