Fields v. Fenstemaker et al

Filing 90

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING without prejudice 89 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to Compel Plaintiff's Complete Answers to State Defendants' Discovery by Defendants Clenis Bell, Michelle Shawn Catterson, Patrick Cousin, Christopher M Drake, Benjamin T Fenstermaker, John C Folk, Calvin William Mayotte, April L Tackett. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 9/2/2014. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
RONALD D. FIELDS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN C. FOLK, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-189

OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline and to Compel Plaintiff’s
Complete Answers to State Defendants’ Discovery filed by Defendants Benjamin Fenstermaker,
John Folk, Christopher Drake, Michelle Catterson, April Tackett, Calvin Mayotte, Clenis Bell, and
Patrick Cousin (the “State Defendants”) on September 2, 2014. (Docket # 89.) The Motion,
however, is inadequate on several fronts.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), a motion to compel “must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Local
Rule 37-1(a) adds the requirement that the certification be filed separately and include: “(1) the date,
time, and place of any conference or attempted conference; and [2] the names of the parties
participating in the conference.”
“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) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); see also 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 State Defendants’ Motion is inadequate because they failed to file a separate Local
Rule 37-1 certification. And even if they had filed a separate certification, the purported conference
that they describe in the Motion is inadequate because it merely indicates that their counsel’s
paralegal sent one email to Plaintiff’s counsel’s legal assistant.
A single e-mail sent by a paralegal to a legal assistant, however, falls woefully short of a
good faith attempt at a conference. See Forest River Hous., Inc. v. Patriot Homes, Inc., No. 3:06-cv841, 2007 WL 1376289, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 7, 2007) (“[T]wo emails . . . do not constitute
meaningful discussion or serious negotiations to resolve the disputed discovery issue.”); In re FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-MD-527 FM (MDL-1700), 2007 WL 79312, at *7 (N.D. Ind.
Jan. 5, 2007) (“[A] single email sent by the Plaintiffs does not constitute an engagement in a
conference to resolve the discovery dispute.”); Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634 (D.C.
Colo. 2003) (concluding that a single email did not satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement); see
generally Imbody, 2010 WL 3184392, at *1 (concluding that several letters exchanged between
counsel was not a good faith conference); Shoppell v. Schrader, No. 1:08-cv-284, 2009 WL
2515817, at *1-2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 13, 2009) (finding that a telephone call and a letter 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 an exchange of five letters was not a good faith conference).
To reiterate, “[t]he requirement to meet-and-confer must be taken seriously . . . .” Garcia v.
Aartman Transp. Corp., No. 4:08-cv-77, 2010 WL 2427571, at *4 (N.D. Ind. June 4, 2010) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). “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)).
And as an additional matter, the State Defendants’ Motion actually incorporated two
motions–the motion to compel and a motion for extension of discovery. But Local Rule 7-1(a) states
that “[m]otions must be filed separately” if they are not presented in the alternative.
For all of these reasons, the State Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline
and to Compel Plaintiff’s Complete Answers to State Defendants’ Discovery (Docket # 89) is
DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 2nd day of September, 2014.
s/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge