(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

E.D. California

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

DecidedJanuary 2, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01699

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency ((PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-1699 DJC AC PS DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs are 19 proceeding in pro se, and this discovery motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. 20 Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and (21). 21 Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to 22 compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that 23 “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the 24 parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint 25 Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt 26 to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire 27 Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf. 28 ] Here, plaintiffs’ motion states that they have requested documents in discovery “on seven 2 || occasions” but there is no indication that formal discovery requests have been served or that the 3 || parties have properly met and conferred regarding the instant dispute. ECF No. 66. Defendants 4 | contend that they have not been served with any discovery requests, and that plaintiffs have not 5 || attempted to discuss discovery with them by phone or even email. ECF No. 72 at 3. 6 Because plaintiffs did not attach or identify any specific discovery requests to their 7 || motion, the court cannot identify any discovery to compel. Further, because plaintiffs, the 8 | moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement, the motion to 9 || compel discovery will be denied. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 10 || Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied 11 || without prejudice to re-filing). If plaintiffs wish to serve subsequent discovery motions, they 12 || must identify the specific discovery requests they seek to compel, they must satisfy meet and 13 || confer requirements by attempting to resolve their discovery disputes with defendants. Further, 14 | they must follow all of the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 || the Local Rules of this Court. 16 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to 17 || compel, ECF No. 66, is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | DATE: December 30, 2024 ~

1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-1699 DJC AC PS DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs are 19 proceeding in pro se, and this discovery motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. 20 Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and (21). 21 Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to 22 compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that 23 “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the 24 parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint 25 Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt 26 to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge Claire 27 Standing Orders (updated March 2023).pdf. 28 ] Here, plaintiffs’ motion states that they have requested documents in discovery “on seven 2 || occasions” but there is no indication that formal discovery requests have been served or that the 3 || parties have properly met and conferred regarding the instant dispute. ECF No. 66. Defendants 4 | contend that they have not been served with any discovery requests, and that plaintiffs have not 5 || attempted to discuss discovery with them by phone or even email. ECF No. 72 at 3. 6 Because plaintiffs did not attach or identify any specific discovery requests to their 7 || motion, the court cannot identify any discovery to compel. Further, because plaintiffs, the 8 | moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251(b)’s meet and confer requirement, the motion to 9 || compel discovery will be denied. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 10 || Nov. 27, 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied 11 || without prejudice to re-filing). If plaintiffs wish to serve subsequent discovery motions, they 12 || must identify the specific discovery requests they seek to compel, they must satisfy meet and 13 || confer requirements by attempting to resolve their discovery disputes with defendants. Further, 14 | they must follow all of the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 || the Local Rules of this Court. 16 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to 17 || compel, ECF No. 66, is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | DATE: December 30, 2024 ~

1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-roberts-v-sacramento-housing-redevelopment-agency-caed-2025.