Worman v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Filing 87

ORDER denying 85 Motion to Compel as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 19, 2012. (mfr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION AMANDA M. WORMAN v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 3:11-CV-03033 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY DEFENDANT ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Worman’s Fourth Motion to Compel (Doc. 85). This Motion is DENIED due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 7.2(g), which states that all motions to compel discovery “shall contain a statement by the moving party that the parties have conferred in good faith on the specific issue or issues in dispute and that they are not able to resolve their disagreements without the intervention of the Court.” Rather than comply with both the letter and spirit of Local Rule 7.2(g), Plaintiff’s counsel advises that he “communicated with defense counsel” concerning Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of discovery responses. (Doc. 85, p. 3). However, merely communicating a request for discovery to opposing counsel is not the same as conferring with opposing counsel in good faith to resolve a discovery dispute prior to filing a motion with the Court. Local Rule 7.2(g) exists to ensure that the Court’s valuable time and resources not be squandered on the minutia of discovery disputes that can, and should if at all possible, be resolved by the parties themselves. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to compel if, after complying with the Local Rules, she still requires Court intervention. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2012. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U. S. 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?