Knight v. Beall's Outlet, Inc.
Filing
25
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/23/2016. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
SANDY KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-166
v.
BEALL’S OUTLET STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
(Doc. 22.)
Defendant filed a Response. (Doc. 23.) For the reasons set forth below and those set forth in
Defendant’s Response, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1337, alleging that she was not paid overtime wages for “a substantial amount of overtime[.]”
(Doc. 1, p. 2.) The parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on March 23, 2016, and the Court
entered a Scheduling Order on May 3, 2016. (Doc. 18.) In that Order, the Court set certain
deadlines for the parties, including the close of discovery on July 26, 2016. (Id. at p. 3.) In
addition to these deadlines, the Court instructed the parties:
The following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to the filing of any
discovery motions including, but not limited to, a motion to compel, motion to
quash, motion for a protective order, or motion for sanctions.
1.
The parties are strongly encouraged to informally resolve all
discovery issues and disputes without the necessity of Court intervention.
In that regard, the parties are first required to confer and fully comply with
Rules 26(c)(1) and 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
Local Rule 26.5, by undertaking a sincere, good faith effort to try to
resolve all differences without Court action or intervention.
2.
In the event that reasonable, good faith efforts have been made by
all parties to confer and attempt to resolve any differences, without
success, the parties are then required to schedule a telephonic conference
with the Magistrate Judge in an effort to try to resolve the discovery
dispute prior to the filing of any motions. 1 The parties shall exhaust the
first two steps of the process before any motions, briefs, memorandums of
law, exhibits, deposition transcripts, or any other discovery materials are
filed with the Court.
3.
If the dispute still cannot be resolved following a telephonic
conference with the Magistrate Judge, then the Court will entertain a
discovery motion. In connection with the filing of any such motions, the
moving party shall submit the appropriate certifications to the Court as
required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26(c)(1) and 37(a)(2).
4.
The Court will refuse to hear any discovery motion unless the
parties have made a sincere, good faith effort to resolve the dispute and all
of the above-identified steps have been strictly complied with. A failure
to fully comply with all of the prerequisite steps may result in a denial of
any motion with prejudice and may result in an award of costs and
reasonable attorney’s fees.
(Id. at pp. 2–3.)
On July 29, 2016, just three days after the close of discovery, Plaintiff filed her Motion to
Compel seeking a Court Order for Defendant to fully answer specified Interrogatory Requests
and Requests for Production of Documents. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff submitted a letter her counsel
wrote Defendant’s counsel seeking these answers, which Plaintiff contends “show[s] that there
has been a good faith effort to resolve these discovery issues[.]” (Id. at p. 1.) In this letter,
Plaintiff’s counsel wrote Defendant’s counsel on July 11, 2016, seeking Defendant’s counsel to
provide all requested information “by the close of business” on July 13, 2016, “or it will be
necessary for use to seek the involvement of the Court.” (Doc. 22-3, p. 2.)
1
The Court also advised, “The parties may schedule such a conference by contacting the Magistrate
Judge’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk.” (Doc. 18, p. 2 n.1.)
2
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, her counsel’s letter in no way shows the requisite good
faith effort to resolve this purported discovery issue prior to seeking this Court’s intervention.
Based on the evidence before the Court, this letter represents the only attempt to resolve this
issue before the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion. In fact, Defendant’s counsel avers that “the parties’
counsel did not have a meaningful discussion as to the contents of the present motion.”
(Doc. 23, p. 3.) Further, Defendant maintains that, in response to counsel’s letters to each other,
each party produced documents to the opposing party on July 11, 2016. (Id. & at p. 4.) The
sending of one letter to the opposition simply cannot serve as the basis for good faith efforts
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s Local Rules. Whitesell Corp. v.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. CV 103-050, 2015 WL 5316591, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 10,
2015) (“[O]ne letter or discovery request, which simply demands that a party accede to every
demand for information, can hardly be considered to qualify as a good faith effort to confer and
attempt to resolve a dispute.”); see also Naviant Marketing Solutions, Inc. v. Larry Tucker, Inc.,
339 F.3d 180, 186–87 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing requirement for good faith effort at conferring
about dispute, not simply demanding acquiescence); Williams v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Unified
Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty. & Kansas City, Kan., 192 F.R.D. 698, 699–700 (D. Kan. 2000) (single
letter between counsel which addresses discovery dispute does not satisfy duty to confer); Porter
v. Brancato, No. Civ. A. 96-2208-KHV, 1997 WL 150050, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 1997) (“‘A
reasonable effort to confer’ means more than mailing a letter to opposing counsel.”).
Moreover, in addition to failing to make a good faith effort to resolve this dispute prior to
the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff failed to contact the Court to schedule a telephonic hearing
prior to filing this Motion. The parties clearly were directed to engage in good faith efforts and
to contact the Court for a telephonic conference prior to the filing of any Motion for the
3
resolution of any discovery conflict. Plaintiff’s counsel disregarded the clear instructions of this
Court by filing this Motion. Such behavior will not be tolerated and certainly will not be
rewarded. Nevertheless, should the parties truly have a conflict which cannot be resolved by
employing the steps outlined above and in the Scheduling Order (including discussing the
discovery issues between counsel and, if that discussion is unsuccessful, having a telephonic
conference with the Court), the Court will entertain a properly made motion after (and only after)
Plaintiff has exhausted those steps.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of August, 2016.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
4
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?