Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation, et al. v. Global Realty Investments, LLC et al
Filing
254
ORDER re 201 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs' motion to compel at docket 201 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute after personal consultation. It is ORDERED that the parties confer in person a t a mutually agreeable time and location within ten days from the date of this order. If the parties are unable to agree on a time or location, the parties shall meet at the office of plaintiffs counsel at 9:00 a.m. on June 15, 2012. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/5/12.(JWS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
11
12
13
SANDPIPER RESORTS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
vs.
GLOBAL REALTY INVESTMENTS,
LLC, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:08-cv-01360 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 201]
19
I. MOTION PRESENTED
20
At docket 201, plaintiffs Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation and
21
Dourian Foster Investments, Inc. (“plaintiffs”) move to compel production of certain
22
documents. Third-party defendant Mohr, Hackett, Pederson, Blakely & Randolph, P.C.
23
(“Mohr Hackett”) responds at docket 231. Plaintiffs’ reply is at docket 233. Oral
24
argument was not requested and would not assist the court.
25
26
27
28
-1-
1
2
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Parties’ Obligation to Confer in Good Faith
3
Plaintiff moves to compel production of various documents from Mohr Hackett.
4
Mohr Hackett argues that the documents are privileged. Prior to being named a third-
5
party defendant, Mohr Hackett responded to a subpoena to produce documents. Mohr
6
Hackett provided approximately three thousand pages of documents and a privilege log.
7
Mohr Hackett provided a supplemental privilege log on January 10, 2012, and another
8
on April 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed the present motion on March 23, 2012.
9
Local Rule 7.2(j) provides that “[n]o discovery motion will be considered or
10
decided unless a statement of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after
11
personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to
12
satisfactorily resolve the matter.”1 Plaintiffs’ counsel attached a declaration stating that
13
he conferred with representatives of Mohr Hackett via email.2 It is clear, however, from
14
the attached email exchange and representations of counsel that there was no personal
15
consultation.3
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) states that a “motion [to compel] must
17
include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
18
with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it
19
without court action.”4 The email exchange indicates that plaintiffs’ counsel did attempt
20
to confer with Mohr Hackett in good faith.5 It also appears that Mohr Hackett was
21
22
23
1
24
25
LRCiv 7.2(j).
2
Doc. 201-2 at 3.
26
3
27
4
28
5
Id. at 4, 10.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)
Doc. 201-2 at 4–11.
-2-
1
unresponsive to plaintiffs’ counsel’s efforts.6 However, plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration
2
does not certify that he attempted to confer in good faith–it erroneously states that he
3
did confer. In any event, the parties have not met their obligation to confer in good faith,
4
and there has been no personal consultation in an effort to resolve this dispute.
5
6
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, plaintiffs’ motion to compel at docket 201 is DENIED
7
without prejudice to renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute after
8
personal consultation. It is ORDERED that the parties confer in person at a mutually
9
agreeable time and location within ten days from the date of this order. If the parties are
10
unable to agree on a time or location, the parties shall meet at the office of plaintiff’s
11
counsel at 9:00 a.m. on June 15, 2012.
12
DATED this 5th day of June 2012.
13
/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Id. at 4, 10.
-3-
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?