(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and No. 2:22-cv-1699 DJC AC PS

DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL,

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants. 17 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro se, and this discovery motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1) and (21). Local Rule 251(b) requires that the parties meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel discovery. The Standing Orders of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge provide that “[w]ritten correspondence between the parties, including email, is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ meet and confer obligations under Local Rule 251(b). Prior to the filing of a Joint Statement, the parties must confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.” See https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judge…