Walker v. TA Operating LLC

Filing 29

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on April 9, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOHN C. WALKER
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:14-cv-04055

TA OPERATING LLC d/b/a
PETRO SHOPPING CENTERS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 22. Defendant
responded to this Motion on April 7, 2015. ECF No. 24. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to this Court. After
considering this Motion, the Court finds it should be DENIED because Plaintiff did not comply with
Local Rule 7.2(g) prior to filing this Motion.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery relates to discovery requests which Plaintiff asserts
were not properly answered by Defendant. ECF No. 22. Local Rule 7.2(g) requires “[a]ll motions
to compel discovery and all other discovery-enforcement motions and all motions for protective
orders 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.” (emphasis added). ”
In what might be an attempt to comply with Local Rule 7.2(g), Plaintiff, in support of his
Motion, sent a letter to Defendant on February 2, 2015, outlining his position regarding the discovery
requests and Defendant’s asserted failure to properly respond. ECF Nos. 22-3. Plaintiff gave
Defendant a deadline of February 9, 2015 to provide the requested information, otherwise a Motion
to Compel would be filed. Id. It appears Defendant did reply to this letter and indicated they would

1

not be able to meet the February 9, 2015 due to travel issues, but would respond “within the next few
days.” Additionally, according to Defendant, although they stated a disagreement with Plaintiff’s
position, Defendant indicated a willingness to respond to Plaintiff’s concerns. ECF No. 24.
Following this, Defendant proposed a phone call, which, according to Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel
essentially ignored. Id.
Simply demanding compliance with a discovery request does not amount to a good faith
effort to resolve a discovery dispute. Further, merely attaching such demands as exhibits to the
Motion does not comply with Rule 7.2(g).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 7.2(g) prior to filing his
Motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice to
refiling upon Plaintiff’s compliance with the local rules of this court.
Further, all Parties are directed to comply with Local Rule 7.2(g) and meet and confer,
either in person or by phone prior to filing any future motion to compel discovery, discoveryenforcement motion, or motion for protective order. Any future violation of Rule 7.2(g) may
result in sanctions being imposed.
ENTERED this 9th day of April 2015.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2