Novotech (Australia) PTY Limited v. SureClinical, Inc.

Opinion

NOVOTECH (Australia) PTY Limited, No. 2:22-cv-01259 JAM AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 41. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The parties assert that this is not a “discovery” motion because there has not been a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference in this case and no discovery schedule has been entered. Plaintiff argues that the motion is brought in accordance with the Preliminary Injunction order at ECF Nos. 30 and 41. The order at ECF No. 41 states that “any disputes between the parties regarding discovery, including the production of documents ordered by this Court on January 20, 2023 (ECF No. 41), shall be submitted to the assigned Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 45 at 2; see also ECF No. 50 at 7. This instruction does not remove the instant motion from the realm of discovery; indeed, it was likely entered precisely because in this district, discovery matters are directed to the assigned magistrate judge. A motion to compel inspection of business records, such as this one, is a discovery motion that falls squarely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and Local Rule 251. Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge further provide that “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf. Plaintiff asserts that there is no meet and confer requirement in the undersigned’s standing orders. ECF No. 50 at 7. As indicated above, this is not true. The undersigned reiterates here that the parties must meaningfully and meet and confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing before bringing a motion such as this one. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing). Additionally, this motion was not submitted in the form of a joint statement as required by Local Rule 251. Should plaintiff choose to re-file this motion, it must be submitted in the form of ajoint statement, in full compliance with the Local Rules and the undersigned’s standing orders. For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 47, is DENIED without prejudice. DATE: April 25, 2023 ~ Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE