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)

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