Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01114-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURIE BUECHE, an individual, 

on behalf of herself, and all persons

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:12-cv-1114-JAM-EFB

vs.

FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability 

company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 6, 2013, plaintiff Laurie Bueche filed a motion to compel defendant to respond

to plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Sets One and Four, and plaintiff’s Requests for Production of

Documents, Set Four. Dckt. No. 21. Plaintiff noticed the motion for hearing for July 3, 2013. 

Id.

Local Rule 251(a) provides that the Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement must be

filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). That rule also

provides that the hearing on a discovery motion may be dropped from the calendar without

prejudice if the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not timely filed. Id. A Joint

Statement has not been timely filed here.

1

Case 2:12-cv-01114-JAM-EFB Document 28 Filed 06/28/13 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

Although the deadline has passed, the docket reveals that no Joint Statement re Discovery

Disagreement has been filed in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel. Therefore, that

motion, Dckt. No. 21, is denied without prejudice and the July 3, 2013 hearing thereon is

vacated. Moreover, it appears from representations made in the parties stipulation filed on June

26, 2013 that they did not intend for the discovery motion to proceed on July 3.1

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2013.

1

 Their stipulation and proposed order requested that the district judge vacate the August

5, 2013 dealing for filing a motion for class certification pending a ruling on defendant’s motion

to compel arbitration. Dckt. No. 25. Although their stipulation did not specifically mention the

July 3 motion to compel discovery, it did acknowledge that a ruling on the motion to compel

arbitration would affect the scope of this litigation. As the parties noted, defendant objected to

the production of certain categories of information prior to the court’s ruling on that motion, and

plaintiff may need to file a motion to compel discovery relevant to the motion for class

certification after a ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. Thus, judicial resources would be

preserved by allowing any discovery motions to be filed after the court rules on the motion to

compel arbitration. Id.

The stipulation and proposed order was approved on June 27, 2013. Dckt. No. 27. 

However, on that same date the district judge also denied the motion to compel arbitration. 

Dckt. No. 26. Nonetheless, the representations in the June 26 filing, along with the parties’

failure to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement, suggest that they do not intend for

plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery to be heard on July 3 (and that the discovery dispute is

not yet ripe for decision since it appears that the basis for at least one of defendant’s objections

to producing discovery is now moot).

2

Case 2:12-cv-01114-JAM-EFB Document 28 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 2