Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01882/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01882-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

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 

la OCT I 0 PH 3: 5 f 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SARAH MENDEZ, on behalf of herself 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC, dba 

QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01882-AJB-KSC 

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 47) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

AS MOOT [Doc. No. 45] 

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

Dispute and Motion to File Documents Under Seal. [Doc. Nos. 47, 45]. For the reasons 

discussed in greater detail below, the Court DENIES the parties' Joint Motion for failure 

to abide by Local Rules and this Court's Prior Order. Plaintiff's Motion to File Exhibit 

Under Seal is now MOOT. 

DISCUSSION 

The Scheduling Order in this case states in part as follows: "All discovery motions 

must be filed ... only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached an impasse 

with regard to the particular issue." [Doc. No. 44, at p. 2.] Local Rule 26.l(a) also states 

that: "The court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. 

3: 16-cv-O 1882-AJB-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01882-AJB-KSC Document 48 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues." 

2 CivLR 26.l(a). Finally, this Court's Chambers' Rules require the parties include the 

3 "exact response to the request by the responding party." Chambers' Rules V(D). 

4 Here, the parties did not abide by any of the aforementioned rules. Plaintiff merely 

5 states: "Plaintiff still maintains these [supplemental responses plaintiff received on 

6 September 25] that change objections are deficient. On September 27, 2017, Defendant 

7 provided for the first time a privilege log and a redaction log. Again, Plaintiff maintains 

8 these are deficient." [Doc. No. 47-1, at p. 1]. The parties have not met and conferred to 

9 discuss whether defendant's supplemental responses are sufficient and would obviate the 

10 need to file the instant Motion. 

11 The parties also did not follow this Court's Chamber's Rule V(D) by failing to 

12 provide the Court with all responses defendants made to the contested requests. 

13 Moreover, purely from a practical standpoint, the Court cannot now determine the 

14 parties' dispute without the defendant's supplemental responses. [Doc. No. 47, at p. 1]. 

15 Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

16 Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion to File Documents Under Seal is MOOT. The Parties 

17 have five (5) days to meet and confer, and refile their Motion with the Court on or before 

18 October 16, 2017. Failure to meet and confer in this regard will result in a waiver of 

19 plaintiffs objections. 

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 Dated: October 10, 201 7 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. Kar· 

United States Magistrate Judge 

2 

3: 16-cv-O 1882-AJB-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01882-AJB-KSC Document 48 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2