Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00927-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 

FLANNERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARNES FAMILY RANCH 

ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00927 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel production from defendant 

Richard Anderson. ECF No. 124. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned 

pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was taken under submission for 

consideration on the papers. ECF No. 125. 

Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet 

and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no adequate joint discovery statement has 

been filed. Instead, plaintiff filed a version of a joint statement that was not approved by 

Anderson (ECF No. 126), and Anderson filed a redlined version of the joint statement in an 

attempt to show that plaintiff made many last-minute edits to which Anderson did not have a 

genuine opportunity to respond. ECF No. 127-4. Neither of these documents satisfy the joint 

Case 2:23-cv-00927-TLN-AC Document 132 Filed 09/27/24 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 

statement requirement, and the court is troubled by the parties’ apparent inability to work 

cooperatively to resolve their discovery disagreements, or at a minimum, adequately present those 

disagreements to the court. 

Additionally, Anderson contends that Flannery’s meet and confer efforts, which consisted 

of e-mails and one one-hour zoom call during which not all issues were addressed, were 

insufficient. ECF No. 127-1. The court agrees. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not 

satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement or the joint discovery statement 

requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. 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). 

Finally, the court notes that the procedural posture of this case is complex, as various 

aspects of the case have been stayed at different times. It is not clear to the court that a successful 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference ever took place between the remaining parties in this case, or that 

there are existing case deadlines. The overall case schedule is a matter for the assigned District 

Judge. However, the undersigned cautions the parties that she will consider no further discovery 

motions unless the submitted joint statement clearly identifies the fact discovery deadline 

presently operative this case. 

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

ECF No. 124, is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 27, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00927-TLN-AC Document 132 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 2