Barrera et al v. Mid America Management et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 28 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 6/18/2013.Mailed to pro se party Vera Barrera, Anthony Lewis, Adadelia Ledsma by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VERA BARRERA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MID AMERICA MANAGEMENT, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Case No. 12-1305-MLB-KGG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in which they contend that
they served a Request for Production on Defendants seeking “COPIES OF
LEASES FROM ALL TENANTS EXCEPT PLAINTIFFS’ [sic] . . . .” (Doc. 28,
emphasis in original.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendants objected to the request
on the basis of relevance. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs
failed to comply with this Court’s Rule 37.2 requiring that the parties confer
before a motion to compel is filed. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED on this basis.
Although Plaintiffs filed a “Certificate of Compliance” (Doc. 30)
contending a good faith effort to confer, Plaintiffs have in fact, failed to comply
with District of Kansas Rule 37.2. The rule requires that the parties make a

“reasonable effort to confer” prior to filing any motion to compel. Plaintiffs’
certificate merely states that Plaintiffs served their document request, Defendants
objected and that, in Plaintiffs’ opinion, the documents “ARE PERTINENT TO
[Plaintiffs’] CLAIMS . . . .” (Doc. 30, at 1-2, emphasis in original.) Based on the
information presented to the Court, Plaintiffs made absolutely no effort to confer
with defense counsel. Plaintiffs do not allege that they even sent a letter or
attempted to make a phone call to opposing counsel to discuss the discovery
dispute prior to filing the present motion to compel.
Plaintiffs are advised that in going forward, the requirements of D. Kan.
Rule 37.2 are not satisfied by simply “mailing or faxing a letter to the opposing
party” regarding a discovery issue. The requirements are also not satisfied by
written electronic communication. The rule expressly requires that the Court deny
a Motion to Compel unless the “parties in good faith converse, confer, compare
views, consult and deliberate, or in good faith attempt to do so.” D. Kan. Rule
37.2.
As stated previously, there is no indication that Plaintiff attempted to
contact defense counsel prior to filing the present motion, let alone an indication
that the parties spoke directly on this issue.
When the dispute involves objections to requested
discovery, parties do not satisfy the conference
requirements simply by requesting or demanding

compliance with the requests for discovery. The parties
need to address and discuss the propriety of asserted
objections. They must deliberate, confer, converse,
compare views, or consult with a view to resolve the
dispute without judicial intervention. They must make
genuine efforts to resolve the dispute by determining
precisely what the requesting party is actually seeking;
what responsive documents or information the
discovering party is reasonably capable of producing;
and what specific, genuine objections or other issues, if
any, cannot be resolved without judicial intervention.
Stouder v. M & A Technology, Inc., No. 09-4113-JAR-KGS, 2011 WL 768738
(D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2011). See also, Contracom Commodity Trading Co. v.
Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 456, 459 (D. Kan. 1999). There is no indication that
any of these activities occurred or were even attempted by Plaintiffs. For this
reason, the Court is obliged to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 28) is, therefore, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 18th day of June, 2013.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge