Pannell v. Scruggs, 1:18 CV 271. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190403f43
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER W. CARLETON METCALF , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 21). The Motion does not comply with Local Rule 7.1(b), which requires that civil motions show that counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement. LCvR 7.1(b). Similarly, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party fai
Summary: ORDER W. CARLETON METCALF , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 21). The Motion does not comply with Local Rule 7.1(b), which requires that civil motions show that counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement. LCvR 7.1(b). Similarly, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party fail..
More
ORDER
W. CARLETON METCALF, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 21).
The Motion does not comply with Local Rule 7.1(b), which requires that civil motions show that counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement. LCvR 7.1(b).
Similarly, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). While Defendants apparently raised objections to Plaintiffs' initial responses to Defendants' discovery requests, the Motion does not reference any additional consultations or attempted consultations with counsel following the submission of Plaintiffs' supplemental responses.
Accordingly, the instant Motion will be denied without prejudice.
Further, as the Court notes that Plaintiffs have not responded to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs are advised that all parties are expected to follow all applicable deadlines in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 21) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
