(PS) McManus v. NBS Default Services, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRISCILLA McMANUS, No. 2:18-cv-02047 JAM AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Bank of America to 19 respond to her Second Request for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories. ECF No. 99. 20 Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to extend time for discovery. ECF No. 100. These 21 matters are referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and 22 302(c)(21). 23 Plaintiff has filed previous motions to compel that were denied without prejudice because 24 she failed to follow the Local Rules, the requirements of which were explained to her by court 25 order. ECF No. 97. Local Rule 251(b) establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion 26 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirement that the 27 parties meet and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Once again, no joint discovery 28 statement has been filed with respect to the pending motion. Additionally, there is no indication 1 | that the parties have met and conferred regarding the disputes — it still appears clear they have 2 | not. Because plaintiff, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer 3 || requirement and the joint discovery statement requirement, the motion to compel discovery is 4 || denied. See e.g., United States v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) 5 || (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without 6 || prejudice to re-filing). The denial at this juncture is with prejudice, because as explained below, 7 || the motion is also untimely and the discovery deadline has passed. 8 The deadline to file a discovery motion in this case was February 5, 2021. ECF No. 78. 9 || Plaintiff's pending motion to compel and motion for an extension of time were filed on February 10 | 10, 2021. The motion for an extension of time cites general non-responsiveness of defendants and 11 || general COVID pandemic delays. ECF No. 11 at 2. The motion is not persuasive; plaintiff has 12 || had ample time to conduct discovery. 13 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel 14 | (ECF No. 99) and motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 100) are each DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || DATE: February 22, 2021 A/

7 ALLISONCLAIRE’ 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28