Garcia
Garcia v. Coldliner Express, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAFAEL VAZQUEZ GARCIA and No. 2:18-cv-02222 TLN AC
BRAULIA PEREZ,
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v.
COLDLINER EXPRESS, INC., MARCI
HINTON, DANIEL H. CARSON, and DOES1-100, inclusive, 16 Defendants.
18 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to quash a third party subpoena. ECF No. 53. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The motion was heard on the papers and without oral argument. ECF No. 59. Local Rule 251 establishes requirements for any party bringing a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, including the requirements that the parties meet and confer and file a joint discovery statement. Here, a joint discovery statement has not been filed. Additionally, defendants assert that plaintiff Garcia and his counsel have made no attempt to meet and confer either by telephone or video conference. ECF No. 57 at 1-2. Plaintiff’s counsel confirms this in…