Filed: Feb. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2016
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On January 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to compel and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on February 24, 2016, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). The undersigned's standing order explains that Local Rule 251(a) "requires the parties to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement," 1 that the undersigned "strictly enforces the deadline for filing Joint Statements," and that "[a]ny motion will be removed from calendar i
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On January 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to compel and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on February 24, 2016, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). The undersigned's standing order explains that Local Rule 251(a) "requires the parties to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement," 1 that the undersigned "strictly enforces the deadline for filing Joint Statements," and that "[a]ny motion will be removed from calendar if..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On January 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to compel and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on February 24, 2016, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). The undersigned's standing order explains that Local Rule 251(a) "requires the parties to file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement,"1 that the undersigned "strictly enforces the deadline for filing Joint Statements," and that "[a]ny motion will be removed from calendar if the Joint Statement is not filed at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing."2 Moreover, that standing order also explains that the undersigned "strictly enforces meet and confer requirements," and that prior to the filing of the joint statement, "the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute." (emphasis in original).
Here, the parties have not filed a joint statement re discovery disagreement, but instead filed a motion, an opposition and a reply. (ECF Nos. 56, 61 & 62.) Moreover, the parties' briefing fails to detail the parties' attempts at meeting and conferring. Local Rule 110 provides that the failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order of this court "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.").
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The February 24, 2016 hearing of defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 56) is continued to March 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26.
2. On or before March 2, 2016, the parties shall file a joint statement re discovery disagreement that complies with the undersigned's standing order and the Local Rules of this court; and
3. On or before March 2, 2016 the parties shall show cause, in writing, as to why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Local Rules and the order of this court.
