Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and 

DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1699 DJC AC PS 

ORDER 

 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs are 

proceeding in pro se, and this discovery motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. 

Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and (21). 

Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to 

compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that 

“[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the 

parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint 

Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt 

to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire 

Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf. 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 75 Filed 01/02/25 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 

Here, plaintiffs’ motion states that they have requested documents in discovery “on seven 

occasions” but there is no indication that formal discovery requests have been served or that the 

parties have properly met and conferred regarding the instant dispute. ECF No. 66. Defendants 

contend that they have not been served with any discovery requests, and that plaintiffs have not 

attempted to discuss discovery with them by phone or even email. ECF No. 72 at 3. 

Because plaintiffs did not attach or identify any specific discovery requests to their 

motion, the court cannot identify any discovery to compel. Further, because plaintiffs, the 

moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement, the motion to 

compel discovery will be denied. 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). If plaintiffs wish to serve subsequent discovery motions, they 

must identify the specific discovery requests they seek to compel, they must satisfy meet and 

confer requirements by attempting to resolve their discovery disputes with defendants. Further, 

they must follow all of the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Local Rules of this Court. 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 

compel, ECF No. 66, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 30, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 75 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2