ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 26

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

On October 23, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' ex parte application for expedited discovery, requiring that Defendants provide responses within fourteen days of the date of the order. (Dkt. No. 22 at 5.) The expedited discovery concerned what information was still required for Defendants to make national security determinations as to each Plaintiff, as well as whether Defendants have used a new enhanced automated screening and vetting process for that individual's PP 9645 waiver adjudication. (Id. at 1-2.)

On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant "Emergency Ex Parte Application to Compel Responses to Interrogatories." (Pls.' Mot., Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to provide substantive and complete responses to Plaintiffs' requests, taking issue with objections raised by Defendants. (Id. at 2.) That same day, Defendants filed an opposition, stating that Plaintiffs had failed to meet and confer as required before filing a discovery dispute. (Defs.' Opp'n at 1, Dkt. No. 27.)

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' emergency motion because Plaintiffs have not met and conferred, as is required by the Civil Local Rules and this Court's standing order. Further, having reviewed the interrogatory responses, the Court notes that it appears the objections are only to the extent that the interrogatory asks about the specific agencies involved in the review process or the information that the agencies had sought, reviewed, or compiled as part of their investigations. (See Pls.' Mot., Exh. B at 4-5.) This appears to be information separate from what information Defendants still require to make their national security determinations, as well as whether Defendants have used the new automated process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.