SCHRECKENDGUST v. ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, CV 13-205-M-DWM. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Montana
Number: infdco20150116k17
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER DONALD W. MOLLOY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Bambinette and Michael Schreckendgust ("Plaintiffs") have moved for Rule 37(c) discovery sanctions. (Doc. 16.) The dispute was argued on January 14, 2015. The matter before the Court is a discovery dispute that arises from a difference between what was asked in interrogatories and requests for admission and what was understood by the responding party when responding to arguably ambiguous questions. There is a reasonable language dispute here
Summary: ORDER DONALD W. MOLLOY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Bambinette and Michael Schreckendgust ("Plaintiffs") have moved for Rule 37(c) discovery sanctions. (Doc. 16.) The dispute was argued on January 14, 2015. The matter before the Court is a discovery dispute that arises from a difference between what was asked in interrogatories and requests for admission and what was understood by the responding party when responding to arguably ambiguous questions. There is a reasonable language dispute here f..
More
ORDER
DONALD W. MOLLOY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Bambinette and Michael Schreckendgust ("Plaintiffs") have moved for Rule 37(c) discovery sanctions. (Doc. 16.) The dispute was argued on January 14, 2015.
The matter before the Court is a discovery dispute that arises from a difference between what was asked in interrogatories and requests for admission and what was understood by the responding party when responding to arguably ambiguous questions. There is a reasonable language dispute here for which presentation to the jury, not sanctions, is the appropriate remedy.
Additionally, the parties failed to meet and substantively confer before the current motion was brought. Although the parties had a brief telephone conversation regarding Plaintiffs' intention to bring the motion, the Local Rule requires that before any discovery motion1 is brought, the parties must meet, confer, and try to resolve their differences. L.R. 26.3(c)(1). The rule is designed to avoid "fight to the last gasp"2 problems over matters that can be professionally resolved by talking.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 16) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is also DENIED. No sanctions or fees to either party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A, B).
FootNotes
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (titled "Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions").
2. King Henry VI, Pt. I, I.ii.127.
Source: Leagle
