Local Rules (“L.R.”) 37-1 through 37-4 sets forth the preferred procedures for the filing of discovery motions in this Court, which includes requirements for meeting and conferring prior to the filing of discovery motions and requires such motions be accompanied by joint stipulations of the parties regarding the issues in dispute. See L.R. 37. In particular, except for motions transferred to this district pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), L.R. 37 “applies to all motions relating to discovery subpoenas served on (a) parties and (b) non-parties represented by counsel.” L.R. 45-1. If a discovery motion is not accompanied by a joint stipulation of the parties, it must contain a declaration from the moving party's counsel “establishing that the opposing counsel (a) failed to confer in a timely manner in accordance with L.R. 37-1; (b) failed to provide the opposing party's portion of the joint stipulation in accordance with L.R. 37-2.2; or (c) refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after the opposing party's portion was added.” L.R. 37-2.4. If such a declaration accompanies the Motion, then the general Local Rules regarding motion practice apply to the Motion. “The Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party” establishing one of the three foregoing bases for proceeding without a joint stipulation. L.R. 37-2.4.

For motions not governed by L.R. 37, except for certain exemptions not applicable here, “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” L.R. 7-3. If the dispute is not resolved, the moving party “shall include in the notice of the motion a statement” setting attesting that a L.R. 7-3 conference took place, with the date noted. Id.

Here, the Motions relate to deposition subpoenas, which may make the Motions subject to the requirements of L.R. 37. See L.R. 45-1. However, the Motions do not include joint stipulations or declarations of counsel establishing that the opposing counsel (a) failed to confer in a timely manner in accordance with L.R. 37-1; (b) failed to provide the opposing party's portion of the joint stipulation in accordance with L.R. 37-2.2; or (c) refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after the opposing party's portion was added. Thus, the Motions cannot proceed as discovery motions under L.R. 37. See L.R. 37-2.4.

*2 Alternatively, if the Motions are not governed by L.R. 37, the Motions would be subject to L.R. 7-3's requirements of pre-filing conferences of counsel and attestations in the Notices of the Motions setting forth the dates of those conferences. Here, the Notices filed with the Motions contains no such attestation. See Dkt. 32 at 2; Dkt. 33 at 2. As a result, the Court may “decline to consider” the Motions. L.R. 7-4. Here, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to consider the Motions. The meet and confer requirement prior to filing motions serve important interests. Here, Plaintiff purports to raise several challenges to the subpoenas at issue in the Motions, including privilege, privacy, and relevance objections. A good faith conference between counsel could allow consideration of manners by which the scope of records sought could be narrowed. Further, including counsel or representatives of the subpoenaed parties could further narrow issues as some issues raised by Plaintiff may be moot if some categories of records requested do not exist. As a result, the Court declines to waive the applicable meet and confer requirement here.

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).

For the foregoing reasons, the Motions (Dkt. 32, 33) are DENIED for failure to comply with the Local Rules. The denial is without prejudice to the filing of new motions that comply with the Local Rules, including good faith attempts to meet and confer with all interested parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk: mba