ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND VACATING HEARING

(ECF No. 89, 92)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On February 14, 2019, Defendants Hanford Police Department, Larry Leeds, Patrick Jurdon, Dale Williams, Christifer Barker, and Jarred Cotta ("Defendants") filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff Michael Valdez filed an opposition on February 20, 2019, and Defendants filed a reply on February 26, 2019. (ECF Nos. 90, 91.)

Defendants did not file a joint statement seven days prior to the hearing date as required by the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. L.R. 251(a). On March 8, 2019, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on the motion from March 13, 2019, to March 20, 2019, and ordering the parties to meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 251(b), and then file a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 251(c) or an affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 251(d) at least seven days prior to the hearing. (ECF No. 92.) In the Court's March 8, 2019 order, it was also noted that the exhibits referenced in the Defendants' motion were not in fact attached to the motion. (ECF No. 89.)

Following the Court's order, on March 8, 2019, Defendants filed a statement of errata attaching the missing exhibits. (ECF No. 93.) However, as of the entry of this order, Defendants have failed to file a joint statement or an affidavit as required by Local Rules, and as ordered by the Court on March 8, 2019. (ECF No. 92.) Pursuant to the Local Rules, a motion for a protective order "shall not be heard unless" the parties meet and confer and file a joint statement detailing the issues in dispute, or the moving party files an affidavit describing why, after a good faith effort, the opposing party refused to meet and confer or participate in the drafting of the joint statement. L.R. 251(b)-(d). Under the Local Rules, the hearing may be dropped from the calendar without prejudice if the joint statement or an affidavit is not filed at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. L.R. 251(a). Additionally, in the Court's March 8, 2019 order, the Court stated that "[t]he failure to comply with Local Rule 251 and this order will result in the denial of the motion. Further, the Court will not find good cause to extend the discovery deadlines due to the failure to comply with Rule 251 or this order." (ECF No. 92.)

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.