Howard v. Johnson et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's procedurally improper 25 Motion to Compel. The Court reminds Plaintiff it is her responsibility to know and follow the rules of the federal court.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/09/2017. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
LORI ANN HOWARD,
AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court provided her with some basic
instructions regarding the development and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 5.) In those
instructions, the Court explained to Plaintiff the process for conducting discovery and cited
the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4-5.) The matter is now before the
Court because Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel requesting the Court order Defendant to
comply with the discovery process. (Doc. no. 25.)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is subject to summary denial for failing to comply with
the Local Rules. See Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir.
1979)1 (holding that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in summary denial of
a motion). The Local Rule that governs the filing of a motion to compel provides:
LR 26.5 Discovery Motions and Objections. Discovery motions in
accordance with Rules 26, 33, 34, 36, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and objections relating to discovery shall:
(a) quote verbatim each interrogatory, request for admission, or request
for production to which a motion or objection is taken;
(b) include the specific ground for the motion or objection; and
(c) include the reasons assigned as supporting the motion, which shall
be written in immediate succession to one another. Such objections and
grounds shall be addressed to the specific interrogatory, request for admission,
or request for production and may not be made generally.
Counsel are reminded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37(a)(2) require a
party seeking a protective order or moving to compel discovery to certify that
a good faith effort has been made to resolve the dispute before coming to
Loc. R. 26.5.
Plaintiff did not attach a copy of any discovery requests, and she did not attach a
certification that she has made a good faith effort to resolve any dispute before seeking Court
intervention. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s procedurally improper discovery
motion. (Doc. no. 25.) The Court reminds Plaintiff it is her responsibility to know and
follow the rules of the federal court. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)
(“[O]nce a pro se litigant is in court, [s]he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court.”).
As the Court first informed Plaintiff in its August 8, 2017 Order, (doc. no. 5, p. 4 n.1), the
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions that were handed down prior to the close
of business on September 30, 1981.
Local Rules and commonly used Forms may be found on the Court’s website at
Finally, the Court reminds Plaintiff of its prior instructions regarding discovery:
If Plaintiff wishes to obtain facts and information about the case from the
defendant, Plaintiff must initiate discovery. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
through 37 (containing the rules governing discovery and providing for the
basic methods of discovery). Plaintiff should begin discovery promptly and
complete it within the time limit set forth in Local Rule 26.1(d).
Interrogatories are a practical method of discovery for pro se litigants. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Interrogatories shall not contain more than twenty-five
questions. Id. Plaintiff must have the Court’s permission to propound more
than one set of interrogatories to a party. Discovery materials should not be
filed routinely with the Clerk of the Court. Exceptions include when the Court
directs filing; when a party needs such materials in connection with a motion
or response, and then only to the extent necessary; and when needed for use at
trial. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37, she should first contact the attorney for that defendant and try to work out
the problem. If Plaintiff proceeds with the motion to compel, she should also
file therewith a statement certifying that she has contacted opposing counsel in
a good faith effort to resolve any dispute about discovery. Loc. R. 26.5.
(Doc. no. 5, pp. 4-5.)
SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?