Progressive EMU Inc v. Nutrition & Fitness Inc
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For reasons as noted within, Plaintiffs motion to compel and request for extension of pretrial deadlines are DENIED. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/18/13. (SAC )
2013 Dec-18 PM 04:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
PROGRESSIVE EMU, INC., f/k/a }
JOHNSON EMU, INC.
Counterclaim Defendant, }
NUTRITION & FITNESS, INC.
Counterclaim Plaintiff. }
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the motion of plaintiff and counterclaim
defendant Progressive Emu, Inc. (“Pro Emu”), to compel certain
discovery from defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Nutrition &
Fitness, Inc (“NFI”). For the reasons that follow, the motion will
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that a
motion to compel be accompanied by a certification that the moving
party has attempted in good faith to obtain the discovery from the
other party without the court’s involvement.
Pro Emu’s motion
contains no such express certification, nor does the motion imply
the type of conferral with the non-moving party demanded by Rule
37. The primary motivation of the instant motion appears to be Pro
Emu’s inability to meet the December 6 deadline for expert reports.
The motion was filed on the same day of the deadline, and alleges
that NFI’s designation of certain records as “attorney’s eyes only”
prevented Pro Emu’s accountant from reviewing the documents.
Pl.’s Mot. at 3.
But the correspondence between the parties that
preceded this motion reveals that NFI expressly invited Pro Emu to
bring an “accountant/expert” to review documents, in person, at
NFI’s facility, provided that Pro Emu revealed the identity of the
expert in advance.
See November 11 email from Charles Burke to
Deanna Weidner, Def.’s Opp’n, Ex. 4, at 4.
Despite NFI’s repeated
misinterpreted the email as an “insistence” that no accountant
would be permitted, and for that reason no expert attended the
document review session.
See Def.’s Opp’n, Ex. 4, at 2-3.
failure to properly acknowledge and appropriately respond to short,
clear emails suggests not only that Pro Emu failed to confer with
The final deadline for all discovery in this case remains
January 31, 2014, giving the parties more than six weeks to
continue to obtain information from each other.
period, the court will not hear further discovery motions, and the
parties will exchange the materials they need for trial without the
contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
conclusion of this period, the court will hear all remaining
If at that time it finds that the parties or
either of them has violated the Federal Rules, it will impose
Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for extension of
pretrial deadlines are DENIED.
DONE this 18th day of December, 2013.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?