Seacor Marine, LLC et al v. C&G Boat Works, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER entered STRIKING 73 Motion to Compel, as further set out in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 6/24/2015. (clr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEACOR MARINE, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:
:

vs.

:

C & G BOAT WORKS, INC., et al.,

CA 14-0596-CB-C

:

Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendant Janson Graham’s motion to compel
the plaintiffs to make complete responses to his first set of interrogatories (Doc. 73),
filed on June 22, 2015. As set forth below, this motion is due to be and hereby is
STRICKEN.
As the parties should be aware, the undersigned “strictly enforce[s]” the
conferencing requirements contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining
to discovery. (Doc. 65, Rule 16(b) scheduling order, ¶ 10 & n.2 (explaining, with citation
to a string of cases in support, that “simply corresponding with opposing counsel is not
considered a good-faith attempt to confer or have a conference to resolve discovery
disputes”).) While Graham has demonstrated that letters and emails have been
exchanged between the parties regarding the substance of his motion (see Doc. 73,
Exhibits C-E), the movant has not certified that he made a good-faith effort to confer, as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s scheduling order (see
Doc. 55, ¶ 10 & n.2), and the undersigned’s examination of the correspondence
exchanged “does not reveal that a good faith effort was made in order to reach an
agreement over the discovery dispute.” Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty
Corp., 272 F.R.D. 310, 312 (D.P.R. 2011) (citing Aponte–Navedo v. Nalco Chem. Co., 268

F.R.D. 31, 40–41 (D.P.R. 2010) (citing, in turn, Antonis v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 2008
WL 169955, at *1 (D.N.H. Jan. 16, 2008) (“emails . . . do[ ] not meet the requirement that
the parties confer in good faith about discovery issues before invoking judicial
remedies”); Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 239, 240 (S.D. Miss. 2001) (the meet and
confer “prerequisite is not an empty formality” and “cannot be satisfied by including
with the motion copies of correspondence that discuss the discovery at issue”)
(emphasis added))); see also Velazquez-Perez, 272 F.R.D. at 312 (“good faith” means
conferring “personally or through a telephone conference”).
In light of the foregoing, Graham’s motion to compel (Doc. 73) is STRICKEN.
This striking is without prejudice to Graham re-filing a motion to compel once he is
capable of making the required good-faith certification. The undersigned brings to the
movant’s attention that last two sentences of footnote 2 of the Court’s April 17, 2015
Rule 16(b) scheduling order: “Further, as the court in Shuffle Master observed, and this
Court adopts, any good faith certification filed ‘must accurately and specifically convey
to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally
resolve the discovery dispute.’ 170 F.R.D. at 170 (emphasis added). Motions with
certifications lacking this level of detail will be stricken.” (Doc. 65, at 5 n.2.) If this level
of detail is not contained in any follow-up motion to compel filed by Graham, it too will
be stricken.
DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of June, 2015.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2