LEO T. SOROKIN, District Judge.
On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff Kimberly Theidon filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. 84, and Defendants Harvard University, et al., also filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. 83. Upon due consideration of the parties' memoranda of law and other filings with respect to the Motions, the Court orders that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED and Defendants' Motion is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART.
Plaintiff moves to compel in response to objections set forth in defendants' responses to numerous document requests served by Plaintiff. Local Rule 37.1 requires that the "memorandum [in support of a motion to compel arising out of a discovery dispute] shall state with particularity the following: . . . Each . . . request for production . . . raising an issue to be decided by the Court, and the response thereto," followed by a "statement of the moving party's position as to each contested issue, with supporting legal authority, which statement shall be set forth separately immediately following each contested item." Local Rule 37.1(b). The terms of the rule are plain. In response to Plaintiff's prior motion to compel, the Court highlighted the rule and explained its substantive importance. Doc. 82 at 2. The memorandum in support of the instant motion to compel fails to set forth Plaintiff's requests for production, or the responses thereto, or Plaintiff's position as to each contested issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 84) is DENIED.
Defendants' Motion originally asked the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce responsive documents to RFPs 4, 25, 28, and 34. Doc. 83 at 1. In its opposition, Plaintiff agrees to search for and/or produce any documents responsive to RFPs 4, 25, and 34. Doc. 87. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to these three requests.
Turning to RFP 28, Defendant asks for "[a]ll documents concerning any communications between you or your attorneys with any media outlet concerning the allegations of the Complaint." Doc. 83-1 at 5. Statements Plaintiff and her lawyers made to the media regarding the allegations of the Complaint are not privileged and are relevant, as they "`might be useful for purposes of impeachment.'"