# Brown v. County of Solano

> District Court, E.D. California · July 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054392

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 26, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054392

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELIESA RENE BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-01045 DAD AC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 COUNTY OF SOLANO, SHARON
L.COLLINS, CYNTHIA TAN,
15 CHRISTINE L.VETTER, ROBINSON
YU, SOLANODIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,
16 BAY IMAGINGCONSULTANTS,
17 Defendants.
18
19

20 Pending before the court is defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging’s motion to compel
21 discovery from plaintiff. ECF No. 51. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned
22 pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1).
23 Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to
24 compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that
25 “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the
26 parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint
27 Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt
28
1 | to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire
2 | Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf.
3 Here, the moving party wrote in its motion, “On March 27, 2023, Counsel for Defendant
4 || sent a letter to Counsel for Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff's responses and production of documents,
5 || which was a good faith attempt to meet and confer on the part of Defendant prior to filing this
6 || Motion to Compel.” ECF No. 51-1 at 2. Sending a single letter is not, in fact, an adequate
7 || attempt to meet and confer. It does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 251(b) or the
8 | undersigned’s standing orders. Additionally, Local Rule 251(b) and (c) require that parties
9 || submit a joint statement to brief discovery motions. Here, the moving party submitted
10 || substantive briefing and there is no indication that a joint statement is intended to follow.
11 Because defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging, the moving party, did not satisfy Local
12 || Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement or joint statement requirement, the motion to compel
13 || discovery will be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1
14 | (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions
15 || are denied without prejudice to re-filing).
16 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to
17 || compel, ECF No. 51, is DENIED without prejudice and the hearing set for August 23, 2023 (ECF
18 || No. 53) is VACATED.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 | DATE: July 25, 2023 ~
21 Atttarr—Chore
ALLISON CLAIRE
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054392. Public record. Not legal advice.