Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02485/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02485-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deana Farley
Plaintiff
Lincoln Benefit Life Company
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANA FARLEY, Individually and on 

Behalf of the Class,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, a 

Nebraska Corporation,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-2485 KJM DB

ORDER

Pending before the undersigned are plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel and request to 

seal. (ECF Nos. 44 & 49.) Plaintiff’s motion will again be denied without prejudice to renewal 

for the reasons explained below. 

On August 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing 

before the undersigned on August 26, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 32.) On

August 31, 2022, the undersigned issued an order denying that motion without prejudice to 

renewal. (ECF No. 38.) Therein, the undersigned explained that the discovery at issue appeared 

to concern class certification, while the deadline for the completion of that discovery passed on 

August 15, 2022. (Id. at 2.)

////

Case 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB Document 50 Filed 11/15/22 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

On September 29, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation concerning, in part, the completion 

of class discovery. (ECF No. 42.) The stipulation explained that defendant intended “to produce 

certain additional documents or discovery items that it intends to use for its opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.” (Id. at 2.) Defendant also intended “to submit a report 

or declaration by a retained expert,” and to “produce said expert for deposition on or before” 

November 18, 2022. (Id.) Accordingly, the parties’ “stipulated to extend the deadline by which 

to complete agreed-upon discovery related to class certification to Friday, November 18, 2022.” 

(Id. at 3.) The assigned District Judge approved the parties’ stipulation on September 30, 2022. 

(ECF No. 43.) 

On October 25, 2022, plaintiff filed a renewed motion to compel and noticed the motion 

for hearing before the undersigned on November 18, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). 

(ECF No. 44.) On November 4, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery 

Disagreement. (ECF No. 48.) Therein, the parties dispute whether the discovery at issue 

concerns the “agreed-upon” discovery subject to the parties’ stipulation. (Id. at 14, 21.) 

Although the undersigned’s reading of the parties’ stipulation is more consistent with defendant’s 

interpretation, all that can be said with certainty is that the parties should have addressed this 

issue in their stipulation with more clarity and specificity. 

Moreover, any order requiring production of discovery related to class certification would 

necessitate an extension of the November 18, 2022 deadline. The parties’ briefing fails to 

adequately address how long of an extension would be required and whether an such extension 

would impact other deadlines in this action. 

Perhaps most importantly, plaintiff’s motion asserts that the parties “met and conferred . . 

. several times . . . in July.” (ECF No. 44 at 2.) In connection with the Joint Statement, counsel 

for defendant filed a declaration, declaring that plaintiff had not in fact met and conferred prior to 

filing the renewed motion to compel on October 25, 2022. (Villanueva Decl. (ECF No. 48-2) at 

2.) Counsel for plaintiff also filed a declaration conceding that the statement that the parties’ “last 

meet and confer was in July . . . was an error.” (Tomasevic Decl. (ECF No. 48-1 at 4.) In a 

vague and conclusory assertion, devoid of evidence in support, counsel asserts that the parties 

Case 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB Document 50 Filed 11/15/22 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

nonetheless “more recently and expressly, repeatedly,” met and conferred over the discovery at 

issue. (Id.) 

That the undersigned strictly enforces meet and confer requirements should come as no 

surprise to the parties. In deny plaintiff’s prior motion to compel the undersigned explained that 

the undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery disputes found on to the court’s web page at 

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistratejudge-deborah-barnes-db requires parties to meet and confer prior to filing a discovery motion 

and to “again confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing” prior to the filing of the 

Joint Statement.1 (ECF No. 38 at 1-2.)

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 25, 2022 renewed motion to compel (ECF No. 44) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal; 

2. Plaintiff’s November 4, 2022 notice of request to seal (ECF No. 49) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal; and

3. The November 18, 2022 hearing of plaintiff’s motion is vacated. 

DATED: November 14, 2022 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/farley2485.mtc2.den.m&c.ord

1 The parties are also advised that the undersigned’s Standard Information re discovery disputes, 

explains that joint statements filed before the undersigned shall not exceed twenty-five pages, 

excluding exhibits. See http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/alljudges/united-states-magistrate-judge-deborah-barnes-db. Title pages, tables of contents, tables 

of citations, etc., all count toward the twenty-five-page limit. Here, the parties’ Joint Statement 

exceeds the 25-page limit. (ECF No. 48.) 

Case 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB Document 50 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 3