Beavers v. Hosey

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice Plaintiff Gary Lee Beavers’s motion to extend the discovery deadline because he failed to show good cause. The court deferred ruling on his motion to compel because he had not satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement, directing the parties to confer and, if necessary, file a joint statement regarding unresolved discovery disputes.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff did not establish good cause for a 90-day extension of discovery because he failed to identify outstanding discovery requests or otherwise articulate a sufficient basis for the extension.
2. A motion to compel is facially deficient when the moving party fails to certify that the parties met or attempted to meet and confer before filing the motion.
3. The court deferred ruling on the motion to compel and directed the parties to meet and confer; if the dispute remained unresolved, they were required to file a joint statement addressing the remaining disputes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff showed good cause warranting an extension of the non-expert discovery deadline under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 16(b)(4).
2. Whether plaintiff's motion to compel was facially deficient because he failed to certify that he had met and conferred with defendant as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 251(b).
3. Whether the court should defer ruling on the motion to compel to permit the parties to meet and confer and, if necessary, submit a joint statement.

Disposition

other