Weaver v. Stringer et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying without prejudice 21 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 5/22/18. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SIERRA D. WEAVER,
as Administratrix for the Estate of
Tracie P. Weaver,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD STRINGER, Sheriff of
Washington County, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00052-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’
Production of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (Doc. 21).

A motion to compel

disclosure “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred
or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure…in an
effort to obtain it without court action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

The Court’s

scheduling order made clear that this requirement would “be strictly enforced” for
any motions to obtain court-facilitated discovery, that “[c]ounsel seeking
court-facilitated discovery…must adequately set forth in the motion facts sufficient
to enable the Court to determine whether there has been good faith conferencing
between the parties[,]” and that “[a]ny such motion not containing the required
certification will be stricken or denied.”

(Doc. 18 at 6). In a footnote, the Court

also cited authorities further explaining what it considered necessary for “good faith
conferencing.”

(See id. n.5).

In particular, those authorities noted that “the

meet-and-confer requirement is not satisfied by the sending of a letter that indicated

that a motion to compel would be filed if the opposing party did not comply with
discovery requests,” and that “the moving party must, at a minimum, either have an
actual face-to-face meeting, or engage in a two-way conversation, with the opposing
party during which the discovery disputes are meaningfully discussed in an honest,
good-faith attempt to resolve the disputes.”

(Id. (quotations omitted)).

The Plaintiff’s present motion indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel discussed
discovery concerns with counsel for the Defendants prior to the Defendants’ service
of their initial disclosures on May 11, 2018, and that Plaintiff’s counsel sent
Defendants’ counsel a letter on May 14 advising him of the deficiencies claimed in
the motion.

(See Doc. 21 at 3, ¶¶ 3 – 4).1

As noted above, sending a letter is not

sufficient in itself to satisfy Rule 37(a)’s meet-and-confer requirement, and there is
no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to have an “face-to-face meeting”
or “engage in a two-way conversion” with Defendants’ counsel to discuss the claimed
deficiencies since the Defendants’ initial disclosures were served on May 11.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Production of Rule
26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (Doc. 21) is DENIED, without prejudice to the
Plaintiff refiling the motion with an adequate good faith conferencing certification
that satisfies Rule 37(a) and the Court’s scheduling order
DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of May 2018.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The present motion was filed and served only four days after the letter was sent.