Rose v. Lawlor et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying as premature plaintiff's 31 Motion to Compel and defendant's 32 Motion for Telephone Conference (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 11/30/2015. (Malone, A.)

ELECTRONIC ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS IN ROSE V. LAWLOR ET AL, 13 CV 1694 (AVC)
11/30/15 – On November 4, 2015, the pro se plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel
(Dkt. #31), as to which defendants filed their Motion for Telephone Conference (Dkt. #32)
the next day.
As defendants explain (Dkt. #32, at 2), plaintiff's motion is "premature, as the parties have
not attempted to confer in good faith about . . . defendants' objections to discovery. . . ."
For those same reasons, defendants' motion similarly is premature. A telephonic discovery
conference with the Court is a last resort, not a first one.
Accordingly, both motions (Dkts. ##31-32) are denied without prejudice to renew, after
the pro se plaintiff and defense counsel attempt to confer in good faith with each other in
an attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, their discovery disputes.