ORDER

TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 116]. Plaintiff has responded [Doc. No. 119] and the matter is fully briefed. For the reasons sets forth, the Court finds the Motion should be denied.

Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order compelling disclosure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A) ("If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions."). Pursuant to this Court's local rules, the Court "shall refuse" to hear a Rule 37 motion unless movant's counsel "first advises the court in writing that counsel personally have met and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attempt to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an accord." LCvR 37.1. Defendant's counsel represents that he "has attempted, in good faith, to confer with Plaintiff's counsel in an attempt to resolve this discovery dispute" but that "Plaintiff's counsel refuses to respond. . . ." See Defendant's Motion at p. 4. However, Defendant's counsel fails to articulate what specific steps were taken to meet and confer, but instead provides only the most conclusory allegations. And in responding to the motion, Plaintiff's counsel makes no attempt to clarify the extent to which the parties have attempted to resolve this matter. This type of practice has become commonplace for each of the attorneys involved in this litigation. Thus, it is difficult for the Court to meaningfully evaluate whether the parties have complied with the "meet and confer" obligations of LCvR 37.1.

The attorneys for both parties have conducted themselves in a manner that falls short of the level of professionalism to which this Court is accustomed. The Court has addressed multiple matters that should have been resolved by the parties without the need for Court intervention. Moreover, the parties have previously disregarded the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order of this Court. The Court has expended significant judicial resources on unnecessary matters as a result. As the trial of this matter draws near, the parties and their counsel are cautioned that the Court will not tolerate continuing conduct of this nature.

Regarding the instant dispute, the record establishes that in its Rule 26 disclosures dated May 20, 2014, Plaintiff identified as a witness, Kelly Parker, P.E. and identified his proposed testimony as: "All facts and circumstances relating to his overall assessment of the full damages to the church roof, expert opinion on the extent and nature of the damages, estimate of probable costs of replacement and repairs." See Plaintiff's Rule 26 Disclosures [Doc. No. 116-1]. In addition, Plaintiff identified the following document in its Rule 26 Disclosure as a document Plaintiff may use in support of its claims: "GWSSI report by Kelly Parker, P.E." See id.

On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Amended Final Witness & Exhibit List [Doc. No. 20].1 Plaintiff identified Kelly Parker as an expert witness. Plaintiff also listed as an exhibit the "GWSSI report by Kelly Parker, P.E." See id. By letter dated September 10, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel advised Defendant's counsel that Plaintiff had "deleted Kelly Parker" as a witness. See correspondence [Doc. No. 119-2].

In support of the pending motion, Defendant states that during the course of discovery, it "requested a copy of Mr. Parker's report" but "Plaintiff failed to produce a copy of the same." See Defendant's Motion at p. 2, ¶¶ 4-5. Defendant further alleges that it again requested a copy of Mr. Parker's report in correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel on January 14, 2015. See correspondence [Doc. No. 116-3].

In response, Plaintiff's counsel advised: "Kelly Parker never generated any report or writing regarding his brief visit to the site." See correspondence dated January 16, 2015 [Doc. No. 116-4]. In Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff again represents that "there is no report from Kelly Parker." See Response [Doc. No. 119] at p. 1 and p. 2, ¶ 3. Plaintiff further states: "Parker's service for Plaintiff was terminated in early August 2014, and prior to any issuance of any type of report." Id. at p. 2, ¶ 9 (emphasis added).2

Because the Court cannot, on the present record, determine whether the parties have complied with LCvR 37.1, the motion is denied. Further, even if the Court were inclined to consider and grant the motion, the Court would not grant the relief sought. Defendant seeks an order from the Court directing Plaintiff to produce a copy of the GWSSI report of Mr. Parker. The Court cannot compel production of a report that does not exist.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 116] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.