Garcia
Garcia v. County of Sacramento
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SALVADOR GARCIA, JR., No. 2:23-cv-00899-DAD-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL. Defendants. 16 Plaintiff’s counsel subpoenaed non-party witness Meghan McEvilly for a deposition for March 11, 2024. (ECF No. 19-2 at 6-8.) On March 6, 2024, Ms. McEvilly, through counsel, filed a motion to quash and for protective order. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned DENIES the instant motion and vacates the motion hearing currently set for April 2, 2024. 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 251(b) a discovery motion “shall not be heard unless [] the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences[.]” In this regard, “[c]ounsel for all interested parties shall confer in advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the hearing of the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the differences that are the subject of the motion.”