*1 On November 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery (Dkt. 117, “Motion to Compel”) and a Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 118, “Motion for Protective Order”) (collectively, “Motions”), each set for hearing on December 31, 2020. Dkt. 117, 118 (“Motions”). The Court vacated the hearings on the Motions, ordered any oppositions to the Motions to be filed by December 7, 2020, and any Reply briefs to be filed by December 11, 2020. Dkt. 115. On December 7, 2020, Defendants Liliana Jara and Richard Ruiz (“Defendants”) filed oppositions to the Motions, arguing the Motions were not filed in compliance with Local Rule 37 because Plaintiff made substantive changes to the draft Joint Stipulations and added new evidence after Defendants provided their portions of the joint stipulations. Dkt. 120, 121. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply, conceding that Plaintiff altered portions of the joint stipulations, but arguing the Motions nonetheless complied with the Local Rules. Dkt. 122.

The Local Civil Rules of this Court apply to parties proceeding pro se, and references in the Local Rules to “counsel” apply to pro se parties absent the context requiring otherwise. See L.R. 1; 83-2.2.3. Local Rule 37-1 provides, in part: “Before filing any motion relating to discovery under [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 26-37, counsel for the parties must confer in a good-faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.”

Local Rule 37-1 then provides for how such good faith conferences must proceed. Local Rule 37-2 provides, in part: “If counsel are unable to settle their differences, they must formulate a written stipulation unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” Local Rule 37-2.1 sets forth the required form for the joint stipulation to be prepared by the parties, requiring, among other things, the stipulation to be set forth in one document, signed by both sides. L.R. 37-2.1. Local Rule 37-2.2 provides the required procedure for the preparation of the joint stipulation. Among other things, the moving party must send to the opposing party “the moving party's portion of the stipulation, together with all declarations and exhibits to be offered in support of the moving party's position.” L.R. 37-2.2. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the opposing party must then, within seven days, deliver to the moving party the opposing party's portion of the stipulation, along with all opposing declarations and exhibits. Id.

After the opposing party's portion of the stipulation has been added by the moving party, the stipulation must be provided to the opposing party, who must sign it, electronically or otherwise, and return it to the moving party by the next business day. Id. After a proper joint stipulation is filed, the parties each may file a supplemental memorandum not less than fourteen days before the hearing date. L.R. 37-2.3. Of significance here:

*2 L.R. 37-2.4 (emphasis added).

Courts may deny discovery motions for failure to comply with the Local Rules' requirements for such motions. See Pina v. Lewis, 717 F. App'x 739, 740 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding district court may properly deny “a motion to compel for failing to comply with local rules”); see also Tri-Valley CARES v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court's discretion.”); Lumber Liquidators, Inc. v. Sullivan, 2012 WL 4464867, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2012) (denying discovery motion for failure to comply with L.R. 37-2); So v. Land Base, LLC, 2009 WL 2407954, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009) (same).

Here, the Motions are discovery-related motions, brought under Rules “26, 33, 26, and 37” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see Motion to Compel at 1, Motion for Protective Order at 1), and are thus subject to the requirements of Local Rule 37. See L.R. 37-1.

As noted, under Local Rule 37-2.1, the moving party in a discovery dispute must submit a “joint stipulation” signed by both parties unless the party establishes that an exception applies under Local Rule 37-2.4. Here, neither of the Motions is supported by such a joint stipulation. Thus, unless Plaintiff has submitted a declaration establishing that Defendants failed to timely meet and confer under Local Rule 37-1, failed to provide their portion of the joint stipulations in a timely manner under Local Rule 37-2.2, or refused to sign and return “the joint stipulation after [their] portion was added,” the Court will not consider the Motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff has not submitted a declaration establishing one of the three provisions of Local Rule 37-2.4 applies; as a result, the Motions are denied.

Plaintiff did submit declarations in support of the Motions. See, e.g., Dkt. 117-2, 118-2. In neither declaration did Plaintiff assert that Defendants failed to timely meet and confer under Local Rule 37.1. Thus, Plaintiff has not “established” the first possible grounds to proceed with a discovery motion without a signed joint stipulation under Local Rule 37-2.4.

As to the second possible ground in Local Rule 37-2.4, in each declaration, Plaintiff asserted that on October 15, 2020, the day after an unsuccessful meet and confer conference, Plaintiff forwarded Plaintiff's portion of separate joint stipulations. Dkt. 117-2, ¶ 2; Dkt. 118-2, ¶¶ 3-4. In each instance, Plaintiff asserted Defendants did not timely provide their portions in response, but instead stated they would be providing supplemental responses. Dkt. 117-2, ¶ 2; Dkt. 118-2, ¶ 6. In one instance, Plaintiff threatened filing a motion without their portion. Id. Plaintiff did not file a motion with respect to either prior joint stipulation, but instead, after receiving Defendants' supplemental responses and finding them inadequate, sent “another” or “resent” her portion of the joint stipulations to Defendants. Dkt. 117-2, ¶¶ 3-4; Dkt. 118-2, ¶ 7. With respect to these second joint stipulation portions, Plaintiff does not allege Defendants failed to time provide their portions in response. Dkt. 117-2, ¶ 4; Dkt. 118-2, ¶ 8. Thus, Plaintiff has not established that Defendants failed to return their portions in a timely manner, the second possible ground under Local Rule 37.2.3.

*3 That leaves only the third possible ground under Local Rule 37.2.3 to proceed with a discovery motion without a signed joint stipulation, that Defendants “refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after [their] portion was added.” L.R. 37.2.3(c). Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff changed the joint stipulations after receiving Defendants' portions and before submitting it to Defendants' counsel for their signature. Dkt. 117-2, ¶ 4; Dkt. 118-2, ¶ 8; Dkt. 122 at 1, 4-6. Defendants also contend Plaintiff added new evidence in support of the altered joint stipulations. See, e.g. Dkt. 121-1, ¶ 4. Plaintiff had no right under the Local Rules to further alter her portion of the joint stipulation after Defendants provided their portion. Plaintiff asserts that she had advised Defendants that her portion of the joint stipulation was “subject to amendment” (Dkt. 122 at 4, ¶ 4); however, the Local Rules do provide any such right to amend. Defendants had no obligation to sign and return the altered joint stipulations as the were no longer the joint stipulations as to which they had provided their portion under Local Rule 37-2.2.

If Plaintiff had responses to Defendants' portions of the joint stipulations, the Local Rules provided her a mechanism—the filing of supplemental memoranda under Local Rule 37-2.3. The Motions and supporting papers total 285 pages. It serves neither the interests of justice nor the interests of the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1) to permit one party to serially modify Local Rule 37-2 joint stipulations and proffered evidence after receiving the opposing party's portion, requiring the opposing party to then scour hundreds of pages to divine what has been altered, added, or deleted, and make responsive alterations, additions, or deletions, with no promise that further alterations will not be made in response in a potentially endless process. The Local Rule 37 process is designed to “eliminate” as many disputes as possible, not provide a vehicle for serial alteration of the disputes. Plaintiff's changes to her portions of the joint stipulations meant Defendants were not required to approve these joint stipulations, nor were they required to treat them as new joint stipulations. To require them to do so would not be in compliance with the letter or the spirit of Local Rule 37. Any failure by Defendants to sign and return the unauthorized, altered joint stipulations or treat the modified joint stipulation as a new joint stipulation was not a violation of Local Rule 37, nor is it a basis for Plaintiff to proceed without a signed joint stipulation under Local Rule 37.2.3.

As Plaintiff has not submitted a proper joint stipulation and has not submitted a declaration establishing any permitted basis to proceed without a joint stipulation signed by all parties, the Court will not consider the Motions. See L.R. 37-2.4; Pina, 717 F. App'x 740; Tri-Valley CARES, 671 F.3d at 1131; Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 2012 WL 4464867, at *4 (denying discovery motion for failure to comply with L.R. 37-2).

As a result, the Motions (Dkt. 117, 118) are DENIED.

The Court notes that Local Rule 37-4 provides that failure to comply with the procedures set forth in Local Rule 37 et seq. “may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Defendants did not request sanctions here, so the Court will not further consider the issue. However, the parties are advised that future unjustified failures to comply with discovery obligations, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or court orders may result in the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), 37(b), or Local Rule 37-4. In addition, the Court reiterates that discovery-related meet and confer sessions must be conducted in accordance with Local Rule 37, including the requirement that Local Rule 37-1 conferences must be conducted by telephone, or, if the parties agree, by videoconference. Due to the pandemic, in-person conferences are not currently required. Further, the parties are directed to proceed with the completion of discovery expeditiously and are ordered to collaborate in the scheduling of depositions. Any party who has failed to appear at a duly noticed deposition without cause is hereby ordered to attend any subsequent duly noticed deposition, which may be conducted by remote means.

*4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk: mba