ORDER

KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

On June 5, 2014, plaintiff inadvertently filed a motion to compel certain discovery responses before the assigned district judge. (ECF No. 18.) The next day, on June 6, 2014, plaintiff re-filed the motion and noticed it before the undersigned for a hearing on July 3, 2014. (ECF No. 21.) The motion to compel is accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration.

Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 251, which specifically governs motions dealing with discovery matters. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to familiarize himself with Local Rule 251, and to meet and confer with defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 251(b). If the parties are unable to resolve their entire discovery dispute informally, they shall file a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement (as narrowed by meet and confer discussions) in accordance with Local Rule 251(c) no later than seven (7) days prior to the noticed hearing. The joint statement shall comply with all the specific requirements of Local Rule 251(c). The court will only consider arguments raised in the parties' joint statement, and plaintiff's presently-filed memorandum of points and authorities will be disregarded.1

Failure to file a joint statement in compliance with Local Rule 251 by the required deadline will result in the July 3, 2014 hearing being vacated, a summary denial of the motion to compel, and the potential imposition of sanctions.

If the parties desire additional time to informally meet and confer regarding their discovery dispute, the parties may file a stipulation for continuance of the hearing for the court's consideration. The parties shall also promptly notify the court if they have resolved their discovery dispute by filing a notice of withdrawal of the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.