ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant California Department of Education has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's December 28, 2015 Minute Order (ECF No. 142). Defendant is correct that the Minute Order incorrectly cited E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 230, since defendant's Motion For Protective Order (ECF No. 138), was a discovery motion governed by Local Rule 251.

However, defendant is not correct in arguing that its Motion for Protective Order complies with Local Rule 251. Accordingly, the hearing on defendant's Motion for Protective Order will be vacated, and the motion itself will be ordered stricken from the docket.

Local Rule 251 calls for the filing of a "notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing date." Local Rule 251(a). Defendant has filed this two-page document in accordance with the rule. However, defendant has also filed 102 pages of other documents — a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, declarations and exhibits — all in violation of Rule 251. All documents other than the notice and motion are to be included in the Joint Statement. Local Rule 251(c). "All arguments and briefing that would otherwise be included in a memorandum of points and authorities supporting or opposing the motion shall be included in this joint statement, and no separate briefing shall be filed." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, no separate documents are permitted, that is, no separate points and authorities, no separate declarations, no separate exhibits. All such documents — from both sides — must be included in a tabbed Joint Statement.

The court's experience has shown that simply vacating the hearing and ordering the parties to comply with the Local Rules has not always been enough to obtain compliance. Therefore, the motion itself will be stricken from the docket, in order to avoid the confusion that would result if a party were to refer to it, rather than — as required — relying solely on the Joint Statement.

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 142), is GRANTED in part, inasmuch as defendant's motion will be denied for its violation of Local Rule 251, rather than Local Rule 230;

2. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 138), is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form under Local Rule 251, and the January 13, 2016 hearing on the motion is VACATED;

3. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 138) is ordered STRICKEN from the docket.

4. Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (ECF No. 129), is unaffected by this order, and remains scheduled for hearing on January 13, 2016.