Exe et al v. Fleetwood RV, Inc.

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 32 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Richard D Exe. The motion may be renewed, if necessary, after counsel conduct a conference, or Plaintiffs show that a conference was attempted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 11/10/2011. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RICHARD D. EXE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FLEETWOOD RV, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-70

OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court in this case alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in
connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of a motor home is Plaintiffs’ motion for a sixty-day extension
for the disclosure of final expert reports and other remaining deadlines, including the last day for
completion of all discovery.1 (Docket # 32.) Plaintiffs explain that they needed certain discovery
responses from Defendant, which they only recently obtained, before their expert can reinspect the
motor home and finalize his expert report. (Pls.’ Br. 2, 5.)
Local Rule 37.1(b) requires that for every motion concerning discovery, “the motion must
include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
person or party in an effort to resolve the matter without court action. The certification shall also
state the date, time, and place of the conference or attempted conference and the names of all
persons participating therein.” The certification is to be made in a separate document and filed
contemporaneously with the motion. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37.1(c).
Here, the Plaintiffs’ certification is inadequate. The certification merely represents that
1

Under the current scheduling order, Plaintiffs were to disclose experts by November 1, 2011, and produce
them for deposition by November 30, 2011; the last day for the completion of all discovery is January 31, 2012.
(Docket # 24, 25.)

counsel “exchanged voluminous emails in an effort to . . . bring the dispute to a voluntary close,”
making no mention of any actual conversations between counsel. Of course, as a general principle,
an email exchange merely “recit[ing] each parties’ general stance on the issue rather than any type of
bartering or negotiations . . . does not represent meaningful dialogue or show an attempt at a such
dialogue to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).” In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., No. 3:05-MD-527 RM,
2007 WL 79312, at *7 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2007); see generally Imbody v. C & R Plating Corp., No.
1:08-cv-218, 2010 WL 3184392, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2010) (concluding that several letters
exchanged between counsel was not a good faith conference); Pinkham v. Gen. Prods. Corp., No.
1:07-cv-174, 2007 WL 4285376, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 3, 2007) (concluding that five letters filed as
exhibits, standing alone, did not constitute sufficient evidence of a good faith conference).
Rather, “[a] good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute requires that counsel converse,
confer, compare views, consult and deliberate.” Imbody, 2010 WL 3184392, at *1 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); Ellis v. CCA of Tenn., LLC, No. 1:08-cv-0254-SEB-JMS, 2009
WL 234514, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2009) (citation omitted). “The requirement to meet and confer
must be taken seriously, because ‘before the court can rule on a motion, the parties must demonstrate
they acted in good faith to resolve the issue among themselves.’” Imbody, 2010 WL 3184392, at *1
(quoting Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2006)). “The parties are reminded that
discovery is supposed to be a cooperative endeavor, requiring minimal judicial intervention.” C.A. v.
Amli at Riverbend LP, No. 1:06-cv-1736-SEB-JMS, 2008 WL 1995451, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 7,
2008) (citing Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976)).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a sixty-day extension for the disclosure of
final expert reports and other remaining deadlines (Docket # 32) is DENIED. The motion may be
renewed, if necessary, after counsel conduct a conference, or Plaintiffs show that a conference was
2

attempted. See Shoppell v. Schrader, No. 1:08-cv-284, 2009 WL 2515817, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 13,
2009).
SO ORDERED.
Enter for November 10, 2011.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States Magistrate Judge

3