Sarieddine v. Connected Int'l Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE SARIEDDINE, No. 2:22-cv-2168 DJC AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CONNECTED INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Pending before the court is Connected International Inc.’s motion to compel discovery 19 responses from Mike Sarieddine and his company, Alien Vape, LLC. ECF No. 89. The motion 20 was set to be heard on the papers June 25, 2025. ECF No. 90. Sarrieddine opposes the motion in 21 part on the grounds that Connected failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion, and that 22 Connected failed to work with him to obtain a joint statement. ECF No. 92. 23 Local Rules 251(b) and (c) establish requirements for any party bringing a motion 24 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and 45, including the requirement that 25 the parties meet and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, no joint discovery 26 statement has been filed. Additionally, although Connected states that it “reached out 5 times, 27 approached the Court, [and] received a directive to file this motion” it does not appear that the 28 parties ever actually connected by telephone. The record attached to the motion to compel 1 | regarding meet and confer efforts shows that “deficiency letters” were sent, along with one email 2 || dated May 7, 2025, offering dates and times to confer via telephone in accordance with the 3 || undersigned’s requirements, which Connected says plaintiff did not respond to. ECF No. 89-9. 4 | There is also nothing on the docket directing Connected to file a discovery motion without a joint 5 || statement; the court’s statement that Connected’s dispute required a motion rather than an 6 || informal telephone conference was not an exemption from the joint statement requirement, nor 7 || was it an approval of its meet and confer efforts. ECF No. 89-10. 8 Because Connected, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule 251’s meet and confer 9 || requirement or the joint discovery statement requirement, the motion to compel discovery will be 10 || denied without prejudice. See e.g., U.S. v. Molen, 2012 WL 5940383, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 11 | 2012) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions are denied without 12 || prejudice to re-filing). The court notes that both parties to this discovery dispute are represented 13 || by counsel and counsel are expected to cooperate with one another in the meet and confer 14 | process, as well as in writing the joint statement. Evidence that either party 1s willfully 15 || subverting the required collaboration may result in sanctions. 16 For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to compel, ECF 17 || No. 89, is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | DATE: June 26, 2025 * 20 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28