Bates v. Daisy Education Corporation

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Barthinia Bates, No. CV-24-02647-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Daisy Education Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At the case management conference on May 9, 2025, the court informed plaintiff 16 Barthinia Bates that despite proceeding without an attorney, she was required to comply 17 with the court’s orders and procedures. The court explained Bates had already filed 18 improper motions and she needed “to do research under the rules and the case law on when 19 it is appropriate to file motions before actually filing one.” The court also provided an 20 explanation of the mandatory discovery dispute procedure: 21 I do not allow the parties in my cases . . . to file written discovery motions without my leave. So you have to seek leave 22 of court to file a written discovery motion. Instead, what I require is that if a dispute arises that the parties can’t resolve 23 despite sincere efforts and realtime communication[,] [the parties] have to jointly file a brief written summary of the 24 dispute. It is not to exceed two pages per party and a joint written certification that the parties have engaged in that 25 realtime consultation that I am requiring and can’t resolve the dispute. You would file copies of the contested discovery 26 requests behind that, but it is just this joint filing that I allow. 27 The discovery dispute procedure was also explained in detail in the case management 28 order. (Doc. 45 at 5.) That order provides a clear prohibition on discovery motions: “[t]he || parties shall not file written discovery motions without leave of the court.” (Doc. 45 at 5.) 2|| Despite the in-court discussion and written order, Bates filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 46.) 4 The motion to compel is denied and Bates is reminded that litigants who proceed 5 || without counsel “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” See 6|| King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa 7\| Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). If the parties have a discovery dispute, they must 8 || comply with the court’s discovery dispute procedures. Bates is warned that her continued 9|| failure to comply with the court’s procedures may result in sanctions, mcluding the || dismissal with prejudice of her claims. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Compel (Doc. 46) is DENIED. 13 Dated this 9th day of July, 2025. 14

16 LAA ALALLA me □□ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-