Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
January 13, 2021, Decided; January 13, 2021, Filed
Case No.: 19cv751-GPC(KSC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME [Doc. No. 100];
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 101];
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 101]
Plaintiff recently filed two Ex Parte Motions regarding depositions. [Docs. Nos. 100, 101.] The caption on the first Ex Parte Motion indicates the subject is "Missed 2nd Depositions." [Doc. No. 100, at p. 1.] An attached declaration states that plaintiff noticed several depositions for October 30, 2020 and November 17, 2020, but he was advised by defense counsel on October 26, 2020 that the deponents would not appear. [Doc. No. 100, at p. 2.] Thereafter, plaintiff represents he "met and conferred about this ex parte via email on November 20, 2020 to which there was no agreement." [*2] [Doc. No. 100, at p. 1.] Plaintiff's requested relief is additional time to comply with Chambers Rule VIII(A), which requires the parties to jointly contact the Chambers of the undersigned Magistrate Judge if meet and confer efforts do not result in the resolution of a discovery dispute. [Doc. No. 100, at pp. 1-2; Doc. No. 100-1, at p. 1.] Plaintiff states he is requesting additional time, because he must satisfy the joint call requirement in Chambers Rule VIII(A) before filing any Rule 37 motions. [Doc. No. 100, at pp. 1-2.]
Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion was filed without complying with the meet and confer requirements. Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(a), parties who reside in different counties must meet and confer by telephone before filing a discovery motion. This requirement cannot be satisfied by written communications. CivLR 26.1(a). Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion states that he met and conferred "via email." [Doc. No. 100, at p. 1.]
Even if the meet and confer requirements were satisfied, it would be futile for the Court to grant plaintiff's request and require the parties to make a joint call to chambers about the depositions noticed for October and November 2020. The purpose of this requirement is so that the [*3] Court can determine whether a dispute can be resolved informally in a telephonic discovery conference without the need for briefing. As outlined more fully below, plaintiff has already briefed and filed his Rule 37 motion and defendants have already filed an Opposition to plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff's request for additional time to comply with Chambers Rule VIII(A) must be DENIED. [Doc. No. 100.]
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6819 *; 2021 WL 118901
AARON RAISER, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al, Defendants.
Prior History: Raiser v. San Diego Cty., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88168, 2019 WL 2249983 (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2019)
depositions, noticed, ex parte motion, parties, recording, confer, monetary sanctions, discovery, sanctions, remote, terminating sanctions, defense counsel, declining, deponent, protective order, RECOMMENDED, additional time, protections, Chambers, briefing, substantial justification, confer requirement, circumstances, defendants', designated, e-mail, notary