Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant

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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

ECF NO. 38

On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to compel. 

(ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel contends that Plaintiff propounded a request for 

production and Defendant has not produced documents responsive to the request. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s request for production sought a copy of a certain check that Defendant sent to Plaintiff 

which Plaintiff did not cash. Defendant responded that, after a diligent search and a reasonable 

inquiry, no such document exists.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is procedurally defective. Discovery motions are governed 

by Local Rule 251. Local Rule 251(b) requires a party to meet and confer with opposing parties 

in a good faith attempt to resolve any discovery dispute informally in advance of the filing of a 

motion to compel. Local Rule 251(c) requires both parties to the discovery dispute to jointly 

draft a document entitled “Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement” which describes the 

details of the meet and confer efforts, the nature of the action, the factual disputes thus fair, the 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/12/14 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

28

2

issues to be determined at the hearing on the motion to compel, and the contentions of each party 

as to each contested issue. Local Rule 251(c) further requires any motion to reproduce copies of 

each discovery request and response objected to.

Local Rule 230(b) also requires all motions to be noticed on the motion calendar for the 

assigned judge. Plaintiff’s motion to compel did not notice a date for the motion to be heard. 

Motions before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone are heard on Wednesdays at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California, Fresno Division, at 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, California 93721. Any future motions 

filed by Plaintiff must notice an appropriate date, time, and place for the motion to be heard. If 

the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement is filed contemporaneously with the motion, the 

motion must be heard at least seven days after the motion is filed and served. If the Joint 

Statement re Discovery Disagreement is not filed with the motion, the motion must be heard at 

least 21 days after the motion is filed and served. Local Rule 251(a).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice. Any future motion 

filed by Plaintiff must include details regarding the parties’ efforts to meet and confer in a good 

faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute informally prior to filing a motion with the Court. 

Any future motion must also notice a hearing date for the motion on an appropriate date which 

complies with the Local Rules.

Finally, with regards to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court notes that Plaintiff asks 

the Court to compel Defendant to produce a document which Defendant contends that they no 

longer possess. In order to prevail on a motion to compel, Plaintiff carries the burden of 

persuading the Court that Defendant does, actually, have possession, custody, or control over the 

document in question. Nothing in Plaintiff’s currently filed motion meets this burden. It is 

unclear why Defendant would have this check in their possession, particularly when the check is 

from May 2010 and it was issued to Plaintiff and Plaintiff never cashed it. Nothing in the 

materials submitted by Plaintiff persuasively demonstrates that Defendant is inaccurate about not 

possessing a four-year-old check that was never cashed by the recipient.

/ / /

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/12/14 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

28

3

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 38.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/12/14 Page 3 of 3