*1 In this case, Plaintiff Beatrice Essah (“Plaintiff”) asserts claims against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”); the Governing Board of LAUSD; LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy; LAUSD Superintendent Austin Buetner; LAUSD Operations Officer David Holmquist; Board Members Steve Zimmer, Monica Garcia, George McKenna III, Monica Ratliff, Ref Rodriguez, Scott Schmerelson, and Richard Vladovic; San Fernando Middle School Principal Freddy Ortiz and Assistant Principal Michael Harrington; Chief Human Resources Officer Vivian Ekchian; and Chief Human Resources Director Justo Avila (collectively, “Defendants”). (See generally Dkt. 37 (“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”).) The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. 51.) After Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint, (see id. (requiring any Second Amended Complaint be filed within 30 days)), Defendants filed an Answer, (Dkt. 58).

On August 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg ordered Plaintiff “to (1) produce electronically the documents responsive to Defendants' document requests by August 19, 2024; and (2) serve written responses to the document requests and interrogatories served by Defendants.” (Dkt. 89 at 1 (citing Dkt. 82).) On September 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff's responses without objections and production of documents, to which motion Plaintiff filed no opposition. (Id. at 1 (citing Dkt. 86).) “At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel explained that, after the Order dated August 16, 2024, counsel's wife broke her hip and was taken to the hospital. Counsel was evicted from their home, where counsel's office was located. Counsel himself was in the hospital and is elderly. For these reasons, counsel has not had access to his computer or his drives, which contain Plaintiff's documents for production, since [Magistrate Judge Rosenberg's] order.” (Id.) Magistrate Judge Rosenberg noted that “[t]he current discovery cut-off date set by the District Judge is November 3, 2024,” and “inquired as to Plaintiff counsel's estimated date of completion of the discovery tasks in light of the unfortunate events described above.” (Id.) Plaintiff's “counsel anticipate[d] that he would be able to index, bates number, and produce electronically Plaintiff's document production by the current discovery cut-off date.” (Id. at 1-2.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Rosenberg granted Defendants' motion to compel and “ORDERED [Plaintiff] to (1) produce electronically the documents responsive to Defendants' document requests and (2) serve written responses to the document requests and interrogatories served by Defendants.” (Id. at 2.) Magistrate Judge Rosenberg further stated that “[t]o the extent Plaintiff's counsel is unable to complete these tasks by the discovery cut-off date of November 3, 2024, Plaintiff must seek relief (e.g., an extension of the discovery cut-off date) from the District Judge.” (Id.)

In the Motion, Defendants state that “Plaintiff did not provide any responses to Defendants by November 4, 2024, as ordered,” and as of “January 22, 2025, Plaintiff has still not produced any discovery.” (Mot. at 5.) Accordingly, Defendants seek terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (See generally Mot.)

*2 Central District of California Local Rule 7-3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion must first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3. Then, “[i]f the parties are unable to reach a resolution that eliminates the necessity for a hearing, counsel for the moving party must include in the notice of motion a statement” indicating compliance with the rule and the date of the required conference. Id.

In a declaration supporting the Motion, Defendants' counsel represents that they “have made several attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Lapekas, regarding Plaintiff's outstanding discovery and Defendants' intent to file this instant motion,” but “Plaintiff's counsel has not responded to any of [the] meet and confer efforts.” (Mot. at 9 (Declaration of Sanaz Rashidi) ¶ 3.) However, the court observes that Defendants' counsel provides no details regarding when or how Defendants' counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel. (See id.) And given the failure of the meet and confer efforts, Defendants' counsel does not “include in the notice of motion a statement to the following effect: ‘This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date),’ ” as Local Rule 7-3 requires. L.R. 7-3; (see generally Mot.).

“Compliance with the Local Rules is not optional.” Cerelux Ltd. v. Yue Shao, 2017 WL 4769459, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2017). In particular, Local Rule 7-3 is not “just a piece of petty pedantry put down to trip up lawyers” or “mere formalism simply there” for lawyers to “check[ ] off.” Lopez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 6088257, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Rather, it serves important functions to help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1); Communities v. Centerline Hous. P'ship I, L.P., 2022 WL 17224665, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022) (“The purpose of Rule 7-3 is not merely to provide notice of a pending motion, but to encourage parties to discuss their respective positions and identify any common ground. This is an essential step to conserve limited judicial resources.”); Cerelux, 2017 WL 4769459, at *1 (“The meet-and-confer requirement of Local Rule 7-3 assists in promoting the resolution of disputes without requiring the intervention of the Court. It also serves the important purpose of providing the opposing party sufficient notice as to the contents of a proposed motion and an opportunity to negotiate on the hearing date. This allows for the preparation of an adequate response given the otherwise short briefing schedule for motions provided for by the Local Rules.”); R.H. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 2019 WL 10744836, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) (cleaned up) (“The purpose of Local Rule 7-3 is to help parties reach a resolution and eliminate the necessity for a hearing, which in turn promotes judicial economy and the administration of justice.”).

Here, the court finds that it is appropriate to deny Defendants' motion for failure to adequately demonstrate compliance with Local Rule 7-3, especially considering the lack of detail Defendants' counsel provides regarding the meet and confer efforts, the difficulties of Plaintiff's counsel that Magistrate Judge Rosenberg documented, and the severity of the relief Defendants seek in this Motion. See L.R. 7-4 (“The Court may decline to consider a motion unless it meets the requirements of L.R. 7-3 through 7-8.”). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. Because the court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15 (authorizing courts to “dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute”), the hearing set for February 20, 2025, is VACATED and off calendar.