ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO MARCH 20, 2019, AT 10:00 A.M.

(ECF No. 89)

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.) The hearing on the motion is currently set for March 13, 2019.

The parties 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). 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:

L.R. 251(b). The Court notes that the papers submitted by the parties do not detail or indicate any effort to meet and confer on the disputed issues. Additionally, while the declaration of Mario Zamora submitted with Defendants' motion references five exhibits, none of these exhibits were attached or provided with the moving papers. (ECF No. 89-3.)

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the hearing on Defendants' motion for a protective order shall be continued from March 13, 2019, to March 20, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom 9. If the parties are able to resolve the dispute, the moving party shall notify the Court as soon as practicable so the matter may be taken off of the Court's calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, the parties shall file a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 251(c), or Defendants shall file an affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 251(d), at least seven (7) days prior to the scheduled hearing, which complies with the procedures outlined in the Local Rules, including the requirement to meet and confer. This Court requires that the parties attempt to resolve the dispute in person or by telephone. Written attempts are not sufficient for the meet and confer requirement.

The 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.

Finally, the parties are advised that they may use the Court's informal discovery dispute procedures here to resolve the instant dispute. Information on the informal discovery dispute procedures is available at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California's website (www.caed.uscourts.gov) under Judges; United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone (SAB). In the area entitled "Case Management Procedures," there is a link to "Discovery Dispute Procedures." If the parties choose to proceed with this process, they must fully comply with the court's informal discovery dispute process. The parties will need to file a stipulation withdrawing these motions and agreeing to the informal discovery process at which time the Court will provide an earlier date and time and a time when the parties are required to file their joint statement of dispute consistent with the informal guidelines (usually 24 hours prior to the informal hearing). The parties are reminded that the Court does not impose sanctions as part of the informal discovery dispute process, unless a party fails to comply with the informal procedures.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.