Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01599-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Global Horizons, Inc.
Defendant
Mede Zepeda
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDE ZEPEDA, ) Case No. 1:06-cv-01599 LJO TAG

) 

Plaintiff, ) ORDER VACATING MOTION 

) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

vs. ) 

) (Doc. 28)

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., )

) 

 Defendant. )

______________________________________) 

On October 19, 2007, plaintiff Mede Zepeda (“Plaintiff”), filed a one-page document

entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Discovery Responses.” (Doc. 28). 

Plaintiff’s motion requested this Court to issue an order compelling Defendant, Global Horizons,

Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide verified answers to her discovery requests and sanction Defendant

for its failure to act in good faith. (Id.). Defendant timely filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion,

consisting of a memorandum of points and authorities and a supporting declaration. (Docs. 30, 31).

Defendant’s opposition includes a request for $875 in sanctions. (Doc. 30, pp. 5-6; Doc. 31, ¶ 3). 

1. Moving party failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

A motion to compel discovery responses “must include a certification that the movant has

in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the

discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

37(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s motion contains no such certification, and counsel for Defendant attests

that Plaintiff’s counsel did not contact him concerning problems with Defendant’s discovery

Case 1:06-cv-01599-LJO -TAG Document 32 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

responses before the motion to compel was filed. (Doc. 28; Doc. 31, ¶ 2). 

2. Moving party failed to comply with Local Rule 37-251.

This Court’s Local Rules contain a similar meet and confer requirement for discovery

disputes. Local Rule 37-251(b) provides that a motion concerning discovery matters “shall not be

heard unless (1) the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences, and (2) the

parties have set forth their differences and the bases therefor in a joint statement re discovery

disagreement.” Local Rule 37-251(b). The moving party is responsible to ensure that the

conference be held at a mutually convenient time and place prior to filing the discovery-related

motion. Id. Here, as attested to by Defendant’s attorney, counsel for Plaintiff did not contact him

before filing the motion to compel. (Doc. 30, pp. 2-3; Doc. 31, ¶ 2). 

Local Rule 37-251(a) requires that a joint statement re: discovery disagreement be filed no

later than three (3) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The scheduled hearing date for

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is November 13, 2007. Consequently, the joint statement re:

discovery disagreement was due no later than November 7, 2007. The Court’s docket in this action

reflects that no joint statement re: discovery disagreement pertaining to Plaintiff’s motion to

compel has been filed. 

Local Rule 37-251(d) provides that counsel for the moving party may file and serve an

affidavit addressing specific matters if he or she is unable to secure the cooperation of opposing

party’s counsel in preparing or executing the required joint statement. The affidavit must be filed

at least three (3) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Court’s docket in this action

reflects that no such affidavit has been filed by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

3. Consequence of failure to comply.

Local Rule 37-251(a) provides that a motion hearing may be dropped from the Court’s

calendar without prejudice if the joint statement or an affidavit contemplated by the Rule is not

timely filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 28) will be vacated without prejudice

for lack of a joint statement and/or affidavit from Plaintiff’s counsel, and Defendant’s request for

Case 1:06-cv-01599-LJO -TAG Document 32 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

sanctions, contained in its opposition to the motion (Doc. 30), will be denied without prejudice to a

further request for sanctions in the event the motion to compel is re-filed and properly brought

before the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and Local Rule 37-251. 

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff Mede Zepeda’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Discovery Responses (Doc. 28)

is VACATED;

2. The motion hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2007, is DROPPED from the

calendar; and

3. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01599-LJO -TAG Document 32 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 3