Yanez-Davison v. UPS, Inc.

Opinion

CHRISTINA YANEZ-DAVISON, No. 2:23-cv-3016-DC-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSEPH DALIA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

Pending before the court is defendant United Parcel Service (UPS)’s motion for a protective order seeking to stay discovery until the resolution of its pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33). ECF No. 39. The motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and Local Rule 251. ECF No. 39 at 1. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). Local Rules 251(b) and (c) establish requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and 45, including the requirement that the parties file a joint discovery statement. Here, no joint discovery statement has been filed; the parties instead filed independent briefing without explanation or reference to the joint statement requirement. ECF Nos. 39, 41, 44. Because UPS, the moving party, did not satisfy Local Rule } 251(c)’s joint discovery statement requirement, the motion is denied without prejudice. See e.g., US. 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). For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for a protective order, ECF No. 39, is DENIED without prejudice. DATE: July 25, 2025 Af

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]