Johnson v. Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd
ORDER denying 32 Defendant's Motion to Compel without prejudice to renew the motion following compliance with the Local Rule and only after consultation with Plaintiff's counsel. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 10/16/08. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION TROY JOHNSON v. NO. 3:07-CV-00004 GTE DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
HANJIN SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL Before the Court is Defendant Hanjin Shipping Company, Ltd.'s ("Hanjin's") Motion to Compel, filed September 18, 2008. Plaintiff Troy Johnson has not responded to the motion. Defendant Hanjin seeks responses to written discovery propounded on August 10, 2007 and May 28, 2008 respectively. Defendant's motion lacks the statement required by Local Rule 7.2(g) that the parties have conferred in good faith but were unable to resolve their discovery dispute without court intervention. From the information in Defendant's motion, it appears that Defendant has come to the Court prematurely. Defendant's counsel wrote to Plaintiff's counsel on August 15, 2008, to discussed alleged deficiencies regarding the discovery responses. (Exh. C to Def.'s motion). Plaintiff's counsel responded to this letter on September 10, 2008, providing additional information and responses to the discovery requests identified by defense counsel as needing supplementation. (Exh. B to Def.'s motion). Eight days later, on September 18, 2008, Defendant filed the present motion. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Defendant's counsel
spoke with Plaintiff's counsel after receiving the September 10th letter and prior to filing the instant motion. Local Rule 7.2(g) requires a party asking the Court to resolve a discovery dispute to include in his initial motion a statement that he has conferred in good faith with opposing counsel on the specific issue in question prior to involving the Court. See Rule 7.2(g) of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. To ensure that the rule is followed, Local Rule 7.2(g) provides for the summary dismissal of all discovery motions lacking the required statement. Local Rule 7.2(g) serves the very practical purpose of not interjecting the Court unnecessarily or prematurely into discovery battles. Because it does not appear that Defendant took adequate steps to attempt to resolve the present discovery dispute without court intervention, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Hanjin Shipping Company's Motion to Compel (Docket No.32) be, and it is hereby, DENIED without prejudice to renew the motion following compliance with the Local Rule and only after consultation with Plaintiff's counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2008. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele_________________ 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?