# Flannery Assoc. LLC v. Barnes Family Ranch Assoc., LLC

> District Court, E.D. California · September 27, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10637491

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** September 27, 2024
- **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/10637491

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 FLANNERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00927 TLN AC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BARNES FAMILY RANCH
ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

17
18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel production from defendant
19 Richard Anderson. ECF No. 124. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned
20 pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was taken under submission for
21 consideration on the papers. ECF No. 125.
22 Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to
23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the parties meet
24 and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no adequate joint discovery statement has
25 been filed. Instead, plaintiff filed a version of a joint statement that was not approved by
26 Anderson (ECF No. 126), and Anderson filed a redlined version of the joint statement in an
27 attempt to show that plaintiff made many last-minute edits to which Anderson did not have a
28 genuine opportunity to respond. ECF No. 127-4. Neither of these documents satisfy the joint
1 | statement requirement, and the court is troubled by the parties’ apparent inability to work
2 || cooperatively to resolve their discovery disagreements, or at a minimum, adequately present those
3 || disagreements to the court.
4 Additionally, Anderson contends that Flannery’s meet and confer efforts, which consisted
5 || of e-mails and one one-hour zoom call during which not all issues were addressed, were
6 || insufficient. ECF No. 127-1. The court agrees. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not
7 || satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement or the joint discovery statement
8 || requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v.
9 || Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with
10 || Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing).
11 Finally, the court notes that the procedural posture of this case is complex, as various
12 || aspects of the case have been stayed at different times. It is not clear to the court that a successful
13 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference ever took place between the remaining parties in this case, or that
14 | there are existing case deadlines. The overall case schedule is a matter for the assigned District
15 || Judge. However, the undersigned cautions the parties that she will consider no further discovery
16 || motions unless the submitted joint statement clearly identifies the fact discovery deadline
17 || presently operative this case.
18 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel,
19 || ECF No. 124, is DENIED without prejudice.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 || DATE: September 27, 2024 . .
22 Bettie Clare
3 ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10637491. Public record. Not legal advice.