O.L v. City of El Monte, et al Case No. 2:20-cv-00797-RGK (JDE) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed April 19, 2021 Counsel O. L., El Monte, CA, Pro Se. Colin E. Barr, Terence Joseph Gallagher, Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O'Neill LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for City of El Monte. Erin Renee Dunkerly, Tomas A. Guterres, Collins and Collins LLP, Pasadena, CA, Amanda G. Papac, Jackson Lewis P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for County of Los Angeles. Early, John D., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Denying Motion to Compel [Dkt. 192] *1 On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff O.L. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action alleging thirteen claims, including alleged civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 40 (“SAC”). The Court granted in large part a motion to dismiss the SAC, dismissing or staying all claims except a single Section 1983 claim based upon an alleged Fourth Amendment violation against Defendants Lilian Jara (“Jara”) and Richard Ruiz (“Ruiz”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. 72. Defendants answered the SAC on August 14, 2020. Dkt. 80. On March 9, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and Request for Sanctions. Dkt. 192 (“Motion”). The Motion was not supported by joint stipulation but was instead supported by an 89-page brief, excluding tables and indices. Dkt. 192-1. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion on March 23, 2021. Dkt. 197. On April 1, 2021, Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt. 199. The Count finds the Motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument or further briefing and vacates the hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. Local Rules (“L.R.”) 37-1 through 37-4 sets forth the preferred procedures for discovery motions in this Court, which includes a requirement that such motions be accompanied by joint stipulations of the parties regarding the issues in dispute. See L.R. 37-1. “[T]he page limitation established by L.R. 11-6 does not apply to stipulations regarding discovery disputes.” L.R. 37-2.1. Under L.R. 11-6, “[n]o memorandum of points and authorities, pre-trial brief, trial brief, or post-trial brief shall exceed 25 pages in length, excluding indices and exhibits, unless permitted by order of the judge.” L.R. 11-6. 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, L.R. 6-1, 7-9 and 7-10 apply to the motion. Id. Here, the Motion relates to discovery, but does not include a joint stipulation. Counsel for Defendants submitted a “supplemental” declaration asserting that Plaintiff did not timely return Plaintiff's portion of a proposed joint stipulation within the time permitted under L.R. 37-2.2 (Dkt. 192-3, ¶¶ 2-7), which, if true, would permit Defendants to proceed with the Motion without a supporting joint stipulation, with regular motion rules governing the Motion pursuant to L.R. 37-2.4. The Court assumes, without deciding, that Defendants have made a sufficient showing to excuse the filing of a joint stipulation under L.R. 37-2.4 here. However, in proceeding without a Rule 37-2 joint stipulation, the otherwise applicable motion rules apply to the Motion, including the 25-page limitation on supporting memoranda set forth in L.R. 11-6. The Memorandum filed in support of the Motion totals 89 pages, excluding tables and indices. See Dkt. 192-1. Defendants did not seek or obtain leave from Court to file an oversized brief in support of the Motion. *2 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 parties have repeatedly violated the Local Rules of this Court. See, e.g., Dkt. 108 at 2; 145 at 39; 150 at 1; 166 at 1; 181 at 1; 203 at 1. Although the vast majority of those violations were committed by Plaintiff, the parties have been placed on notice that violations of the Local Rules may result in, among other things, denials of noncompliant motions, and the Court has denied motions and requests by Plaintiff for failing to comply with the Local Rules. In addition, the Court notes that in connection with the Motion, upon being advised that they may have violated the Local Rules in failing to lodge a proposed order with the Motion, Defendants challenged whether a proposed order was required under the Local Rules, and then only agreed to lodge one “[i]n the event this Court requires a proposed order for Defendants Motion.” Dkt. 199 at 6. To be clear, it is not this Court's requirement that a proposed order be lodged with motions, it is the Local Rules' requirement. See, e.g., L.R. 7-20 (“Orders on Motions and Applications. A separate proposed order shall be lodged with any motion or application requiring an order of the Court, pursuant to L.R. 52-4.1.”); L.R. 52-4.1 (“Separate Order. A separate proposed order shall be submitted with any stipulation, application, motion, or request of the parties requiring an order of the court.”) The Court does not deny the Motion based on the failure to submit a proposed order, but considers Defendants' refusal to lodge a such proposed order even after being placed on notice of that failure in exercising its discretion to deny the Motion based on the other, more significant, page limitation violation. As the Court denies the Motion, it also denies Defendants' request for sanctions. Further, the Court denies Plaintiff's cross-request for sanctions, finding that Plaintiff's conduct in connection with the discovery at issue would render any award of sanctions in her favor unjust considering all of the circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 192) is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules and the cross-requests for sanctions are denied. Nothing in this Order excuses any failure or refusal by Plaintiff to comply with prior orders or discovery obligations. Plaintiff is reminded that a failure to comply with a Court order may result in sanctions including that facts may be deemed established for purposes of the action, that certain claims may not be raised at trial, that certain evidence may not be permitted to be offered at trial, that pleadings may be stricken, and/or that the action may be dismissed in whole or in part. IT IS SO ORDERED.