Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00696/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00696-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Mardan, Inc.
Defendant
Saeed Zarakani
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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAEED ZARAKANI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0696-MCE-KJN

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel various discovery responses, 

presently set for hearing on July 2, 2015. (ECF No. 42.) However, upon review of the briefing 

submitted, it appears that the remaining defendant, Mardan, Inc., which is represented by counsel, 

did not participate in the drafting of the joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement 

required by Local Rule 251. Defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s contentions as 

contemplated by Local Rule 251 significantly hampers the court’s ability to resolve the motion on 

the merits and is potentially sanctionable absent a satisfactory showing of good cause for the 

failure. Nevertheless, in light of the court’s concern discussed below, the court defers 

consideration of the motion and any potential sanctions, and vacates the July 2, 2015 hearing, 

subject to potential rescheduling.

////

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 43 Filed 06/24/15 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

26

27

28

2

The court’s record does not reveal that the parties have yet engaged in any meaningful 

settlement discussions. Therefore, in an attempt to avoid the accumulation of attorneys’ fees

through potentially unnecessary motion practice and hearings, the court orders the parties to first 

meet and confer to explore settlement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than July 14, 2015, the parties shall meet and confer, at a minimum by 

telephone, to explore potential settlement options and shall file a joint status report 

outlining: (a) when and where the meet-and-confer session took place; (b) who was 

present; (c) whether a settlement conference before the undersigned (with a waiver of 

disqualification by all parties) or another magistrate judge should be scheduled; and 

(d) any other information the parties deem pertinent.

2. The July 2, 2015 hearing is vacated. 

3. Upon review of the parties’ joint status report, the court will further schedule any 

settlement proceedings and/or motion practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2015

 

Case 2:14-cv-00696-MCE-KJN Document 43 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2