Brown

Brown v. County of Solano

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 26, 20232:21-cv-01045California465 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELIESA RENE BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-01045 DAD AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SOLANO, SHARON

L.COLLINS, CYNTHIA TAN,

CHRISTINE L.VETTER, ROBINSON

YU, SOLANODIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,

BAY IMAGINGCONSULTANTS, Defendants. 18

Pending before the court is defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging’s motion to compel discovery from plaintiff. ECF No. 51. This discovery matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). 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 28 to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.