*1 On February 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (“MTC”). Docket no. 76. Defendants filed an opposition on April 3, 2023. Docket no. 117. Defendants' opposition is supported by the declaration of their counsel Aamir Raza (“Raza Decl.”) and exhibits. Docket no. 118. On April 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a reply, supported by her own declaration (“Crook Decl.”) and exhibits. Docket nos. 125-26. The court now denies plaintiff's motion to compel for the reasons that follow.

Plaintiff alleges defendants unlawfully searched and seized firearms and ammunition from her home on December 2, 2021. Docket no. 50. With the instant motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to produce (1) a certified copy of the oaths of office taken by the individual deputy defendants; (2) the deputy defendants' “original complete digitally timestamped belt recordings and video recordings” from the December 2, 2021 encounter at plaintiff's home; and (3) “a copy of the proof of personal service of the San Bernardino Superior Court order for Jasper Crook from November 18, 2021.” MTC at 1-2.

A. Plaintiff Failed to Comply With Local Rule 37

The local rules of this court require the parties to meet and confer in good faith, or the moving party must submit a declaration that the opposing party failed to confer in a timely manner. L.R. 37-1, 37-2.4. The moving party must serve a letter requesting a conference, identifying the issues or discovery requests in dispute, providing any legal authority it believes is dispositive of the dispute, and specifying the terms of the discovery order sought. L.R. 37-1. The moving party is responsible for arranging the parties' meet and confer session. Id. Courts have discretion to deny discovery motions that do not comply with the local rules. See 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 that failed to comply with L.R. 37); So v. Land Base, LLC, 2009 WL 2407954, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009) (same).

Here, plaintiff has offered no evidence of even attempting to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37-1 despite being advised of them multiple times, including in the court's February 24, 2023 order to show cause why the MTC should not be denied as untimely and noncompliant with the local rules. Nor has plaintiff properly complied with the joint stipulation procedures required by Local Rule 37-2. In her reply, plaintiff refers to “meet and confer conversation[s]” with defense counsel that apparently followed defendants' initial disclosures. Reply at 6. But these “conversational requests” that apparently followed defendants' initial disclosures are not sufficient to satisfy the procedures contemplated by Local Rule 37 for meeting and conferring in good faith regarding discovery disputes, as outlined in detail above.

*2 In her reply, plaintiff cites authority for the proposition that courts construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally and may, in their discretion, overlook technical shortcomings and failures to fully comply with procedural requirements. Reply at 5-6. But the benefit of the doubt courts afford pro se plaintiffs is far from a green light for plaintiff to disregard the local rules altogether. Plaintiff is not excused from the requirements of Local Rule 37 simply because she is a pro se litigant. As defendants note, her motion could be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 37 alone. Opp. at 2. But as explained below, her motion also fails on the merits.

B. Defendants' Oaths of Office Are Not Relevant to Any Party's Claim or Defense

Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of certified copies of the oaths of office taken by the individual deputy defendants. MTC at 1. She says defendants failed to produce them in response to a subpoena granted by the clerk of the court on October 11, 2022. MTC at 2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment (the court has “the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings”); U.S. v. Aurora Las Encinas, LLC, 2012 WL 12897081, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) (“The pleadings define the scope of the present discovery ....” (cleaned up)). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendants argue the oaths of office are not relevant to any claim or defense in this case, which is about whether the seizure of guns and ammunition from plaintiff's home violated her constitutional rights. Opp. at 5. Defendants note that all peace officers take oaths of office, and that there is no dispute that the deputies in this case are sworn peace officers and were acting in the scope of their duties when they went to plaintiff's home. Id. Additionally, defendants state that the materials are part of the deputies' personnel files and are therefore protected from disclosure. Id. Plaintiff states that her “interest in the oaths [is] to verify they are valid and legitimate. If the oaths are valid then this will prove all Defendants' brazen disrespect for Claimant's constitutionally protected rights .... If the oaths are invalid then it proves that Defendants' actions were/are criminal in nature.” Reply at 10-11.

Plaintiff's argument seems to be premised on the idea that if defendants did swear a “solemn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the United States Constitution and California Constitution against all enemies,” the search and seizure in this case violated that oath, presumably because it violated her federal constitutional rights. Reply at 10. But this premise assumes the very issue plaintiff seeks to prove in this case, namely, that the search and seizure violated her rights under the U.S. Constitution. And even if it were true that the deputies violated their oath, that fact would not prove that plaintiff's federal constitutional rights were violated. In other words, a deputy's violation of their oath of office does not necessarily imply a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

For these reasons, plaintiff has not shown defendants' oaths of office are relevant to any claim or defense in her case, and they are therefore outside the scope of discovery.

C. Defendants Are Not Required to Produce Recordings That Do Not Exist

*3 Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of “original complete digitally timestamped belt recordings and video recordings” from December 2, 2021. MTC at 1. Plaintiff argues these recordings are relevant to “prove non-party Jasper Crook never voluntarily consented to a search and seizure on December 2, 2021.” Reply at 8. She says defendants failed to produce them in response to a subpoena granted by the clerk of the court on October 11, 2022. MTC at 2.

Defendants represent that all responsive recordings have already been produced. In response to plaintiff's request for recordings, defendant County produced audio recordings with Bates Nos. DEF_0044 to DEF_0046, DEF_0064 and DEF_0075. Raza Decl. ¶ 4. Further, defendant stated, “Following a reasonably diligent search, the Sheriff has located and previously produced three audio recordings, 17 digital photographs and one video. See DEF_0044 through DEF_0064. The Sheriff has also located and will produce an additional audio recording. See DEF_0075.” Raza Decl. ¶ 5. Additionally, the deputy defendants testified in their depositions that they do not have body worn cameras, so there are no video recordings. Id.

Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the audio recordings listed above, but alleges that the recording for defendant Bechtol (DEF_044) is edited and incomplete. Reply at 6. But she provides no support for that assertion, other than her husband's conclusory declaration affirming the same. See Crook Decl., Ex. 2. As for video recordings, plaintiff claims they “do exist, are relevant, and are uploaded and stored in the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Vault.” Reply at 8. But plaintiff provides no support for that assertion other than noting that defendants “do participate in deputies wearing video cameras in the High Desert.” Reply at 9. Defendants' use of body worn cameras under other circumstances has no bearing on whether they were used here.

In sum, defendants state that they have produced all recordings responsive to plaintiff's request, and that no video footage exists. Plaintiff argues otherwise, but offers no evidence to undermine defendants' declaration. Accordingly, defendants are not required to produce recordings that do not exist.

D. Defendants Are Not Required to Produce Documents Outside Their Control

Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of a “copy of the proof of personal service of the San Bernardino Superior Court order for Jasper Crook from November 18, 2021.” MTC at 2. Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel has “willfully withheld” such document “that allegedly granted Defendants authority to search and seize Claimant's private property on December 2, 2021.” MTC at 2. Defendants state this information is not within the possession, custody, or control of the Sheriff's Department, and point out that whether the Superior Court served Jasper Crook is a matter plaintiff would need to address with the Superior Court. Opp. at 6-7. Plaintiff has offered no evidence or explanation to the contrary. As such, defendants are not required to produce a document not within their possession or control.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (docket no. 76) is denied.