Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02153/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAHMOUD S. SALEH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2153-GEB-KJN

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel various discovery responses, 

presently set for hearing on June 18, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) However, upon review of the briefing 

submitted, it appears that defendants, who are represented by counsel, did not participate in the 

drafting of the joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement required by Local Rule 251. 

Defendants’ failure to respond to plaintiff’s contentions as contemplated by Local Rule 251 

significantly hampers the court’s ability to resolve the motion on the merits and is potentially

sanctionable absent a satisfactory showing of good cause for the failure. Nevertheless, in light of 

the court’s concern discussed below, the court defers consideration of the motion and any 

potential sanctions, and vacates the June 18, 2015 hearing, subject to potential rescheduling. 

The court’s record does not reveal that the parties have yet engaged in any meaningful 

settlement discussions. Therefore, in an attempt to avoid the accumulation of attorneys’ fees

Case 2:14-cv-02153-GEB-KJN Document 11 Filed 06/15/15 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

through potentially unnecessary motion practice and hearings, the court orders the parties to first 

meet and confer to explore settlement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. No later than June 30, 2015, the parties shall meet and confer, at a minimum by 

telephone, to explore potential settlement options and shall file a joint status report 

outlining: (a) when and where the meet-and-confer session took place; (b) who was 

present; (c) whether a settlement conference before the undersigned (with a waiver of 

disqualification by all parties) or another magistrate judge should be scheduled; and 

(d) any other information the parties deem pertinent.

2. The June 18, 2015 hearing is vacated. 

3. Upon review of the parties’ joint status report, the court will further schedule any 

settlement proceedings and/or motion practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2015

 

Case 2:14-cv-02153-GEB-KJN Document 11 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2