Filed: Jun. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiff Diversified Lenders, LLC's Motion to Compel Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production and Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions." Dkt. #81. Having reviewed plaintiff's motion, it is clear that it is not entitled to the relief requested. Plaintiff propounded its third sets of discovery requests on Ma
Summary: ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiff Diversified Lenders, LLC's Motion to Compel Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production and Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions." Dkt. #81. Having reviewed plaintiff's motion, it is clear that it is not entitled to the relief requested. Plaintiff propounded its third sets of discovery requests on Mar..
More
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiff Diversified Lenders, LLC's Motion to Compel Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production and Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions." Dkt. #81. Having reviewed plaintiff's motion, it is clear that it is not entitled to the relief requested.
Plaintiff propounded its third sets of discovery requests on March 13, 2017. Plaintiff agreed to a one week extension of the response deadline, but when it did not hear from defendant, contacted opposing counsel on April 21, 2017. Defense counsel acknowledged that the deadline had "gotten away from" them and served objections later that day. Plaintiff filed this motion without meeting with defendant to discuss the objections. Plaintiff makes no effort to address the merits (or lack thereof) of defendant's objections in the motion, instead simply objecting to the filing of objections.
The meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1) are imposed for the benefit of the Court and the parties. They are intended to ensure that parties have an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to resolve discovery disputes and that only genuine disagreements are brought before the Court. In the circumstances presented here, compliance with the Rule would have involved face-to-face or telephonic communications regarding defendant's objections, plaintiff's interests in the requested information, and the potential for compromise. While plaintiff boldly declares that it conferred in good faith in an attempt to obtain the relief requested in this motion, the Court finds that it did no such thing. Counsel's April 21, 2017, conversation regarding a missed deadline is no substitute for a full and fair opportunity for the parties to explicate their arguments and objections without Court intervention.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's second motion to compel (Dkt. #81) is denied for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1).
