Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assualt,Slander

---

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

MARCUS HEITKOETTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KARL DOMM,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00368-ADA-BAM

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR AN ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL 

PAGES ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM 

PLAINTIFFS

(Doc. 68)

ORDER VACATING HEARING

Pending before the Court is Defendant Karl Domm’s (“Defendant”) Request for an Order 

for Additional Pages on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery From Plaintiffs. (Doc. 68.) 

Defendant requests 20-25 pages within the joint statement regarding discovery disagreement. To 

brief his discovery issues (Id.) Plaintiffs Marcus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, 

LLC (“Plaintiffs”) did not file an opposition. See L.R. 233(b) (“Any non-moving party may file 

an opposition or supporting statement relating to a Motion for Administrative Relief within five

(5) days after the motion has been filed.”). 

Having considered the briefing, the Court finds that the currently scheduled hearing on the 

instant motion is not necessary. L.R. 233(c) (“Unless otherwise ordered, a Motion for 

Administrative Relief is submitted on the day after the opposition is due for immediate action by 

the Court without hearing.”) Accordingly, the hearing on the Defendant’s motion set for August 

4, 2023, is VACATED.

As the Court’s standing order regarding page limits does not apply to briefs on Local Rule 

251 motions, the Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Defendant shall have 25 pages within the 

parties’ joint statement regarding discovery disagreement. 

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 72 Filed 07/28/23 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 parties are reminded that meet and confer requirements are imposed so that the parties 

may resolve their differences and narrow the issues for the Court’s review. L.R. 251. The parties 

are further reminded that counsel are required to conduct at least one telephonic or in-person 

conference as part of their obligations to meet and confer in good faith to resolve their discovery 

dispute prior to seeking judicial intervention. (Doc. 54 at 3).

The Court also invites the parties to resolve discovery disputes informally through the 

Court’s discovery resolution process. Upon stipulation of the parties, Judge McAuliffe will 

resolve discovery disputes by informal telephonic conference outside the formal procedures of the 

Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing noticed motions to compel. The 

procedures for requesting an informal telephonic conference are set forth in Judge McAuliffe’s 

Case Management Procedures located on the Court’s website, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov. The 

Court may additionally schedule an informal conference before deciding any formally noticed 

discovery motion.

Finally, the parties’ conduct should assist in securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The parties are admonished 

against unnecessarily burdening the Court’s limited resources. If the parties are unable to meet 

and confer and resolve issues in good faith, the Court, in its discretion, may set an IN PERSON 

meet and confer conference in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 

McAuliffe, where counsel will be required to personally appear in court to further meet and 

confer to resolve the outstanding discovery issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 72 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 2