Filed: Jun. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Defendants have filed a motion to compel discovery responses and noticed the hearing for July 3, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) Due to the court's scheduling needs, the hearing will be continued. The court further notes that in their motion, defendants state that they are excused from the joint statement requirements of Local Rule 251. ( Id. at 2; ECF No. 30-1 at 3 n.2.) However, the required joint statement is excused only "(1) when there has been a com
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Defendants have filed a motion to compel discovery responses and noticed the hearing for July 3, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) Due to the court's scheduling needs, the hearing will be continued. The court further notes that in their motion, defendants state that they are excused from the joint statement requirements of Local Rule 251. ( Id. at 2; ECF No. 30-1 at 3 n.2.) However, the required joint statement is excused only "(1) when there has been a comp..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants have filed a motion to compel discovery responses and noticed the hearing for July 3, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) Due to the court's scheduling needs, the hearing will be continued.
The court further notes that in their motion, defendants state that they are excused from the joint statement requirements of Local Rule 251. (Id. at 2; ECF No. 30-1 at 3 n.2.) However, the required joint statement is excused only "(1) when there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request or order, or (2) when the only relief sought by the motion is the imposition of sanctions." L.R. 251(e). Where the opposing party refuses to cooperate in the preparation and execution of a joint statement, counsel for the moving party may file an affidavit setting out their efforts to obtain a joint statement and the issues to be determined. L.R. 251(d).
Since defendants seek to compel discovery rather than the imposition of sanctions only, they are not excused from filing a joint statement unless there has been "a complete and total failure to respond." Defendants allege that plaintiff has partially responded to their interrogatory requests and failed to sign or verify them. (ECF No. 30-1 at 3.) Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may treat such deficiencies as a failure to respond for purposes of a motion to compel, an incomplete or unexecuted response is not "a complete and total failure to respond" as required to excuse a joint statement under the Local Rules. Accordingly, defendants are cautioned that if they fail to timely file a joint statement, or an affidavit if plaintiff fails to cooperate, the hearing will be dropped and the motion denied without prejudice. L.R. 251(a).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The July 3, 2019 hearing on defendants' motion to compel is continued to July 10, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
2. The defendants shall file a joint statement or appropriate affidavit at least seven days before the hearing or the hearing will be dropped and the motion dismissed without prejudice.
