ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiff Yvette Carrasco's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories and Better Responses to Request for Production (Doc. 17) and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 18), both filed on January 20, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension is denied.

Plaintiff requests that the Court extend several pre-trial deadlines including discovery because (1) Defendant provided Plaintiff with untimely responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests; (2) Counsel for Defendant will not make himself available to address the deficiencies in Defendant's responses to discovery; (3) Defendant insists that Plaintiff prepay for electronic copies of documents it intends to produce, or the Plaintiff travel to its offices to inspect the documents; (4) Defendant has failed responded with dates for the availability of key witnesses; and (5) Plaintiff wishes to conduct additional discovery concerning TY Lin Corporation's involvement in the maintenance of the bike path. Doc. 18 at 2-3. Counsel for Plaintiff further states that she conferred with counsel for Defendant, who agrees to the proposed extension of the pretrial deadlines. Doc. 18 at 4.

Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel. Doc. 17. In Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff also states that she attempted to confer with Defendant's counsel to discuss the deficiencies in the discovery responses. Doc. 17 at 1. Plaintiff states that to date, she has not received a response to her request to meet and confer. Id. Later in Plaintiff's motion, however, Plaintiff states that she has conferred with opposing counsel but they were unable to resolve the dispute. Id. at 2. These conflicting statements cause the Court some concern because the parties have an obligation under local rule 3.01(g) to confer in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). If the parties have not in fact conferred pursuant to the local rule, this motion is premature.

Based on Plaintiff's representation in both the motion to compel and the motion for extension, it appears that the parties have not met and conferred regarding the alleged deficiencies in the discovery responses. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to confer to make a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues raised in the motion to compel, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion addressing any unresolved issues.

Moreover, if Defendant's counsel is able to make himself available to agree to an extension of the pretrial deadlines, he can also make himself available to discuss the issues raised in the motion to compel. Thus, the Court is not inclined to extend the pretrial deadlines at this time when the parties do not appear to have met their obligations under the local rules, and discovery presently does not close for more than two months.

Additionally, the parties are reminded that, "[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility." See Middle District Discovery, A Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida § I(A)(1).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff Yvette Carrasco's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories and Better Responses to Request for Production (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 18) is DENIED.

3. The parties are direct to meet and confer to discuss the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues.

DONE and ORDERED.