Deangelis v. Strayer Electric, LLC

Filing 33

ORDER striking 28 Motion to Compel discovery because the motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) or the Case Management and Scheduling Order governing this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 5/12/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
GREGORY DEANGELIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1482-Orl-37TBS

STRAYER ELECTRIC, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This is another case in which counsel failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). The
rule requires attorneys and pro se parties to confer in good faith before most motions are
filed. Conformity with the rule eliminates the filing of motions that would otherwise waste
clients’ money and the attorneys’ and Court’s time. Of particular relevance to this case is
the following provision in the rule:
A certification to the effect that opposing counsel was
unavailable for a conference before filing a motion is
insufficient to satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer. The
moving party retains the duty to contact opposing counsel
expeditiously after filing and to supplement the motion
promptly with a statement certifying whether or to what extent
the parties have resolved the issue(s) presented in the motion.
M.D. FLA. Rule 3.01(g). The Court reiterated Rule 3.01(g) in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) which governs this case (Doc. 19):
A.

Good Faith Conference and Certification Requirement

DUTY TO CONFER – before filing a motion not
exempted under Local Rule 3.01(g), the moving party shall
engage in a substantive conversation with the opposing party—
in person or by telephone—in a good faith effort to resolve the
issues raised by the motion without Court intervention (“Good
Faith Conference”). The duty to confer is not satisfied by mere

correspondence—particularly an exchange of ultimatums
through e-mails, letters, or facsimiles.
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT – if issues requiring
Court intervention exist after the Good Faith Conference, the
moving party shall file with the motion a statement certifying
that the moving party has conferred with the opposing party
and whether the parties agree on the resolution of the motion
(“Certification Requirement”).
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The Court will strictly enforce the Good Faith Conference and Certification
Requirements. Failure to satisfy the Duty to Confer provides sufficient grounds for
denial of a non-exempt motion and imposition of sanctions. Further, the Court will strike
any non-exempt motion that is filed without a compliant Certification.
(Doc. 19 at 5). The CMSO continues:
3.
Mere Attempts to Confer – Moving parties who
unsuccessfully “attempt” to confer with opposing parties have
not “conferred,.” A Certification to the effect that the opposing
party was not available for a Good Faith Conference does not
constitute compliance with the Certification Requirement.
(Id., at 6).
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to
Determine the Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection (Doc. 28). Defendant has filed a
response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 32). The motion to compel includes the
following certificate of counsel:
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i) and local rule
3.01(g), I made a good faith effort to obtain the discovery
sought herein without court action. I have attempted to confer
with opposing counsel to obtain the answers, responses, and
documents without court action.
(Doc. 28 at 24). This certificate, which has not been supplemented, does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 3.01(g). Accordingly, and consistent with the CMSO, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel (Doc. 28) is STRICKEN for failing to comply with Rule 3.01(g).

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 12, 2017.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-