TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge.

Dear Counsel:

Compel Defendants' Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 21), Defendants' Response in Opposition (ECF No. 23), and Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF No. 24). I have reviewed the submissions and find that no hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 24, 2012. (ECF No. 1). Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on May 23, 2012. (ECF No. 12). On June 20, 2012, Judge Blake held a conference call with counsel to "discuss the appropriate schedule in this case." (See ECF No. 13). Thereafter, on June 27, 2012, Judge Blake issued a letter to counsel confirming that the case had been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference, and that, in the absence of a scheduling order, "[c]ounsel may engage in discovery as agreed upon prior to the mediation." (ECF No. 16). On October 1, 2012, a settlement conference was held before Judge Gauvey. (ECF No. 19).

On October 9, 2012, after the settlement conference proved unsuccessful, Plaintiffs served document production requests on Defendants ("October document requests"). (ECF Nos. 24-1, 24-2). Defendants did not produce the requested documents, did not raise any objections, and did not move for a protective order. On January 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendants' Reponses to Discovery, requesting that the Court enter default judgment against the Defendants, or alternatively, find that all of Defendants' objections to the document production requests have been waived.

Local Rule 104.4 controls the commencement of discovery in civil proceedings. This rule provides that

Loc. R. 104.4.

The scheduling order in this case was entered on February 5, 2013. (ECF No. 25). Judge Blake's June 27, 2012 letter to the parties provided that, pending the resolution of the settlement conference, the parties could "engage in discovery as agreed." (ECF No. 13) (emphasis added). Any discovery requests served before February 5, 2013, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, were improper. See generally Madison v. Harford County, 268 F.R.D. 563, 565 (D. Md. 2010). In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs do not contend that the parties agreed to engage in discovery with respect to Plaintiffs October document requests, and Defendants contend that there was no such agreement. (See ECF No. 23-1).

Plaintiffs' October document requests were premature. Plaintiffs should have waited until the Court issued a scheduling order to make these requests. Otherwise, Plaintiffs were required to secure an agreement from Defendants that such requests could be made before the scheduling order was issued. At the same time, Defendants acted improperly in failing to respond, object, or move for a protective order with respect to the October document requests. Rule 34(b)(2) provides that a party "must respond in writing within 30 days after being served" with a document production request. Defendants' failure to respond does not comply with the requirements of the Rules, notwithstanding that Plaintiffs' document requests were untimely.1

As discovery continues in this matter, the parties should recall that the spirit of the discovery rules requires "cooperation rather than contrariety, communication rather than confrontation." Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 357-58 (D. Md. 2008). It is not productive for a party to conclude that a discussion between the parties concerning discovery problems is unnecessary because "there [is] not anything to talk about." (ECF No. 24 at 5). In this case, for example, the parties' submissions on this discovery dispute total nearly 100 pages. As a result of this Court's order, the parties are now in the same place as they would have been had they informally resolved their discovery dispute. For example, the parties might have agreed that Defendants' responses to the October document production requests would be due by 30 days after the Court issued the scheduling order. This solution would have required relatively little creativity, and would have permitted the parties to focus their resources on the substantive issues at stake in this case.

Defendants are directed to respond2 to Plaintiffs' October document production requests within 30 days from the date of this Order.3 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is otherwise denied.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it will constitute an Order of the Court and will be docketed accordingly.