Rice et al v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 26

RULING and ORDER denying 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 05/25/11. (PAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NATHAN RICE, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL

NO. 11-44-BAJ-M2

RULING & ORDER
Considering the representation by plaintiffs in their opposition (R. Doc. 24) that the
discovery requests at issue in the motion to compel (R. Doc. 23) filed by defendants, Willie
Graves, Sheriff of Livingston Parish, State of Louisiana, and Deputy Joel Arnold, were
propounded upon plaintiffs prior to the Rule 26(f) conference occurring in this matter,1 in
violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1);2 such discovery requests were premature.

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) provides that, “[e]xcept in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure
under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise,” neither of which situations exist in the present
matter, “the parties must confer as soon as practicable – and in any event at least 21 days before a
scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f)(1). During that conference, the parties are to consider the nature and basis of their claims and
defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the
disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and
develop a proposed discovery plan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). The attorneys of record and all
unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference,
for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within
14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. Id.
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before
the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial
disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d)(1). None of the exceptions to Rule 26(a)(1)(B) exist in this case.

Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 23) responses to those
discovery requests filed by defendants is hereby DENIED.3
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 25, 2011.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND

3

See, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Affiliates, 2011 WL 1226115 (D.Del. 2011)(denying a motion to
compel on the basis of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) because the discovery requests in question were
prematurely submitted before a Rule 26(f) conference had occurred in the case).