Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company v. J & P Transport et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 12 MOTION for Order Shortening Time to Answer Interrogatories filed by Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 5/12/11. (jcp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
J & P TRANSPORT, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 1:11-cv-137

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Shortening Time to
Answer to Interrogatories. (Docket # 12.) The Plaintiff states that it plans to serve
interrogatories on Defendant Hy-Line Enterprises Holdings, LLC, to ascertain the citizenship of
Hy-Line’s members and asks the Court to shorten the response time from thirty to fourteen days.
(Docket # 12.) Because the Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and has not shown
why a reduced time period is necessary, however, the Motion is DENIED.
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).

1

“A good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute requires that counsel converse, confer,
compare views, consult and deliberate.” Imbody v. C & R. Plating Corp., No. 1:08-cv-218, 2010
WL 3184392, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2010) (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)).
Here, the Plaintiff has not filed the required Local Rule 37.1 certification indicating that a
good faith attempt has been made to resolve the matter without Court involvement. Of course,
the Court recognizes that counsel has not appeared for Hy-Line, but there is no recitation of any
contact at all with that party in an effort to avoid the present motion. Moreover, the Plaintiff has
not provided any explanation for why the time to respond must be shortened under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2). Indeed, while the Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended
Complaint “forthwith,” more than two weeks have already passed without one being filed and
there is apparently no prospect of one being filed until the requested discovery is received.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket # 12) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Enter for May 12, 2011.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States Magistrate Judge

2