Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 AWI LJO

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL (Doc 86)

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

Plaintiffs’ notice of motion seeks an order compelling the production of the Internal Affairs and

personnel records of retired Fresno County Sheriff Deputy Michael Robinson. Defendants filed an

opposition indicating that there has been a failure to meet and confer regarding this motion. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 requires that counsel “meet and confer” in an effort to resolve disputes regarding

discovery or disclosure before bringing discovery motions. The moving party must include a

certification that the movant has “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with the other party

in an attempt to resolve the dispute without court action. Fed.R.Civ.P 37(a)(2)(B).

This Court’s Local Rule 37-251(b) requires meeting and conferring and states in pertinent part:

“[A] motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, including

any motion to exceed discovery limitations or motion for protective

order, shall not be heard unless (1) the parties have conferred and

attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the parties have set forth

their differences and the bases therefor in a joint statement re discovery

disagreement. Counsel for all interested parties shall confer in advance

of the filing of the motion or in advance of the hearing of the motion in

a good faith effort to resolve the differences that are the subject of the

motion.”

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 90 Filed 03/01/06 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

The evidence before the Court is that the parties did not meet and confer. Moreover, the parties did not

submit a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreements to this Court, a further violation of this Court’s

Local Rule.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 90 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2