Vondran Legal® Litigation Insights, Federal Court California Civil Procedure - Local Rule 37-1. Call us for local representation at (877) 276-5084.
Introduction
The California Central District Local Rules can be daunting. If you are an out-of-state legal firm, you may not be aware of the local rules, much less rule 37-1 pertaining to DISCOVERY DISPUTES. As intellectual property litigators—copyrights, trade secrets, tradedress, trademarks, and right of publicity and NIL disputes—we know there will almost always be discovery disputes requiring motions to compel or motions for sanctions for discovery abuse, etc. However, there are very specific rules that you must follow if you are seeking to appear pro hac vici. Vondran Legal® has litigated many cases in California Central District over the last 20 years. We are able to serve as local counsel for IP and entertainment-related cases, media disputes, fair use copyright, video photo and image infringement, and general business and contract disputes. Contact us for more information. This blog will discuss the unique requirement when seeking to bring a discovery-related motion.
What is the California Central District?
Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to Attorney Steve® amazingly popular YouTube channel with over 45,000 friends of the channel. This is the official home of the Litigation Whiteboard®!!
Local Rule 37-1 Explained
Under California Central District Local Rules 37-1 (click on the civil rules), the following is the process that must be filed when filing motions.
L.R. 37-1 Prefiling Conference of Counsel. Before filing any motion relating to discovery under F.Rs.Civ.P. 26-37, counsel for the parties must confer in a good-faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible. It is the responsibility of counsel for the moving party to arrange for this conference. If both counsel are located in the same county, the conference must take place in person at the office of the moving party's counsel unless the parties agree to meet someplace else. If both counsel are not located in the same county, the conference may take place telephonically. Unless relieved by written order of the Court upon good cause shown, counsel for the opposing party must confer with counsel for the moving party within ten days after the moving party serves a letter requesting such conference. The moving party's letter must identify each issue and/or discovery request in dispute, state briefly as LOCAL RULES - CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12/1/2024 Chapter I - 57 to each such issue/request the moving party's position (and provide any legal authority the moving party believes is dispositive of the dispute as to that issue/request), and specify the terms of the discovery order to be sought.
L.R. 37-2 Moving Papers. If counsel are unable to settle their differences, they must formulate a written stipulation unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The stipulation must be filed and served with the notice of motion. L.R. 37-2.1 Form of Joint Stipulation. The stipulation must be set forth in one document signed by both counsel. The stipulation must contain all issues in dispute and, as to each such issue, the contentions and points and authorities of each party. The stipulation may not refer the Court to any other documents. For example, if the sufficiency of an answer to an interrogatory is at issue, the stipulation must contain, verbatim, both the interrogatory and the allegedly insufficient answer, followed by each party's contentions as to that particular interrogatory, separately stated. If the allegations made in a prior filing are relevant, a copy of that prior filing should be attached as an exhibit. Exhibits to the stipulation may include declarations prepared in conformity with L.R. 7-7. The specification of the issues in dispute, and the parties' contentions and points and authorities as to such issues, may be preceded by an introductory statement from each party, provided that no party's introductory statement may exceed three pages in length. When a party states its contentions on a particular issue, such party must also state how it proposed to resolve the dispute over that issue at the conference of counsel. Although the stipulation should present the disputed issues as concisely as the subject matter permits, the page limitation established by L.R. 11-6 does not apply to stipulations regarding discovery disputes. Any stipulation exceeding ten pages in length, excluding exhibits, must be accompanied by an indexed table of contents setting forth the headings or subheadings contained in the body thereof but need not be accompanied by a table of authorities. The title page of the stipulation must state the date and time of the motion hearing, the discovery cutoff date, the pretrial-conference date, and the trial date. In addition, a copy of the order establishing the initial case schedule, as well as any amendments, must be attached to the stipulation or to a declaration filed in support of the motion.
L.R. 37-2.2 Preparation of Joint Stipulation. Following the conference of counsel, counsel for the moving party must personally deliver, e-mail, or fax to counsel for the opposing party the moving party's portion of the stipulation, together with all declarations and exhibits to be offered in support of the moving party's position. Unless the parties agree otherwise, within seven days of receipt of the moving party's material, counsel for the opposing party must personally deliver, e-mail, or fax to counsel for the moving party the opposing party's portion of the stipulation, together with all declarations and exhibits to be offered in support of the opposing party's position. After the opposing party's material is added to the stipulation by the moving party's counsel, the stipulation must be provided to opposing counsel, who must sign it (electronically or otherwise) and return it to counsel for the moving party no later than the end of the next business day, so that it can be filed with the notice of motion. L.R. 37-2.3 Supplemental Memorandum.
After the Joint Stipulation is filed, each party may file a supplemental memorandum of law not later than fourteen days before the hearing date. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a supplemental memorandum may not exceed five pages in length. No other separate memorandum of points and authorities may be filed by either party in connection with the motion. L.R. 37-2.4 Failure to File Joint Stipulation. The Court will not consider any discovery motion in the absence of a joint stipulation or a declaration from counsel for the moving party establishing that opposing counsel (a) failed to confer in a timely manner under L.R. 37-1; (b) failed to provide the opposing party's portion of the joint stipulation in a timely manner under L.R. 37-2.2; or (c) refused to sign and return the joint stipulation after the opposing party's portion was added. If such declaration accompanies the motion, then L.Rs. 6-1, 7- 9 and 7-10 apply
L.R. 37-3 Hearing on Motion. The motion must be noticed to be heard on a regular Motion Day for the appropriate judge at least twenty-one days after the filing of the motion. Unless the Court in its discretion otherwise allows, no discovery motions may be filed or heard on an ex parte basis absent a showing of irreparable injury or prejudice not attributable to the lack of diligence of the moving party. L.R. 37-4 Cooperation of Counsel - Sanctions. The failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.
Attorney Steve Tip® - I am litigating a very contentious trade secret misappropriation case under CUTSA and DTSA dealing with Rutan and Tucker. There have been so many discovery motions and so many comments about rule 37-1 I decided to write this blog to help educate other law firms. You need to make sure to send a detailed letter to the opposing counsel before bringing your motion (ex. motion to compel further discovery or sanctions). You need to follow rule 37-1 to the tee. Send the initial letter outlining each of the issues. Then, provide supporting case law (legal authority). At that point, you will be in a position to demand the opposing counsel meet with your IN PERSON (if located in the same county) or by telephone if not. This method seeks to resolve disputes by forcing attorneys to seek to be civil and work with each other to resolve discovery disputes. If an agreement cannot be reached, there is a joint stipulation process that must be followed. The judges in the Central District will require pretty strict demand to these C.D. local rule requirements for the most part, but depending upon the judge.
Interpreting caselaw
Here is some caselaw interpreting the Rule 37-1 local rule requirements.
"Okada v. Whitehead, No. 815CV01449JLSKESX, 2020 WL 2078244, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020) (“This requirement is excused, however, by a declaration establishing that the non-moving party failed to confer in a timely manner upon request. L.R. 37-2.4. Okada's declaration establishes that Whitehead failed to timely respond to Okada's letter seeking to confer, thereby excusing Okada from bringing his motion in the form of a joint stipulation.”); Herrera v. City of Palmdale, No. 216CV09453MWFMARX, 2022 WL 17367187, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022), 2022 WL 17368811 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022) (“On March 1, 2022, defense counsel drafted a meet and confer letter, pursuant to Local Rule 37–1, to schedule a telephone conference in an effort to resolve the issue of Plaintiff's non-response informally. Mr. Weiser did not respond. To date, Mr. Weiser has not contacted defense counsel nor has Plaintiff provided responses to Defendant's requests for discovery”); Rutherford v. Dootson Prop. Mgmt., L.P., No. 520CV1746JGBSPX, 2021 WL 4571982, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2021) (“On May 12, plaintiff sent defendant a letter requesting complete responses to his interrogatories and document requests by May 19, or a meet-and-confer conference under Local Rule 37-1 within the next ten days. Defendant did not respond to this letter. Plaintiff wrote to defendant on May 24 again to request a discovery conference. Defendant also ignored that communication. Defendant failed to respond to a third request for a discovery conference sent on May 27.”)."
Contact California Central District Local Counsel
Vondran Legal® has litigated cases in the California Central District since our founding. Contact us if you are an out-of-state law firm seeking local counsel. We are currently serving as local counsel in two MASSIVE cases, one against Facebook and another against the FTX founder accused of crypto fraud. We require an initial non-refundable up front fee and hourly fees as required for us to fulfill our ethical duties. Call us at (877) 276-5084 or fill out our contact form on the right side of this page.
