Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00400/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00400-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO ARRIETA,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF KERN, DEPUTY ENRIQUE 

BRAVO, DEPUTY BRANDON 

RUTLEDGE, and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive,

 Defendants.

LEAD CASE 1:14-cv-00400-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:14-cv-00401-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:14-cv-00402-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:14-cv-00403-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:14-cv-00404-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:14-cv-00717-LJO-JLT

MEMBER CASE: 1:15-cv-00706-LJO-JLT

ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

Plaintiffs in the seven (7) above-captioned cases claim to have witnessed and/or videotaped a 

violent encounter on or about May 7, 2013 between unnamed Kern County Sheriff’s (KCS) Deputies

and a man unrelated to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim to have been subjected to unlawful treatment when 

Defendants attempted to retrieve the cellular telephones on which videos had been recorded.

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defs.’ Mot. For Summ. J. 

(“MSJ”), Doc. 59. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition. Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. For Summ. J. 

(“Opposition”), Doc. 60. Defendants timely replied. Reply by Defs. (“Reply”), Doc. 62. 

Magistrate Judge Thurston’s scheduling order provides that a party moving for summary 

judgment must meet and confer with the non-moving party “[a]t least 21 days before” filing a motion. 

Doc. 39 at 5 (emphasis in original). The purposes of the meeting are to:

1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a question of fact 

exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has 

merit in whole or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved 

without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the issues for review by the 

court; 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the 

expense of briefing a summary judgment motion; 6) to arrive at a joint 

statement of undisputed facts.

Case 1:14-cv-00400-LJO-JLT Document 64 Filed 01/22/16 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

2

Id. at 5-6. 

The moving party “shall certify that the parties have met and conferred as ordered above, or set 

forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer” in their notice of motion. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion should be denied as procedurally defective because they did not 

attempt to meet and confer with them prior to filing the MSJ. Opposition at 12. Defendants do not

address this issue in their Reply. However, their Notice of Motion does not “certify that the parties have 

met and conferred as ordered above, or set forth a statement of good cause for the failure” to do so. 

To remedy this defect, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer immediately as to

whether they can resolve any of the issues raised in the MSJ. Additionally, the Court ORDERS the 

parties to file a joint status report indicating whether any aspects of the MSJ are withdrawn or amended. 

The status report is due as soon as possible, but no later than Thursday, January 28, 2016. The Court will 

entertain requests for leave to file additional briefing, if necessary, related to any withdrawn or amended 

arguments. 

The procedural posture of this case reflects that this is not the first time the parties have failed to 

comply with court orders. The parties are warned that any future failure to comply with the rules or 

orders of this Court will be met with sua sponte sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00400-LJO-JLT Document 64 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2