ORDER

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel responses by Defendants to discovery that he promulgated. (Doc. 40).

As Defendants' point out, Plaintiff's motion is due to be denied on procedural grounds because it fails to comply with the requirements of the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 47). Specifically, Plaintiff failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the instant motion as required by Local Rule 3.01(g),1 and the motion fails to comply with the substantive requirements of Local Rule 3.04(a).2

Moreover, based on the current posture of the case (i.e., the pending report recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in its entirety with leave to amend), it is unknown whether Plaintiff's claims will continue on the existing Complaint or whether he will be required to file an amended complaint. This is significant because in resolving discovery disputes, relevancy and proportionality are the guiding principles: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). In order to determine the scope of discovery the Courts and the parties must consider and evaluate "the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Id. ("The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes." Comment, 2015 Amendment). Here, without knowing what claims are being asserted, the Court cannot conduct the necessary analysis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.