Davis v. Menzina et al

Filing 46

RULING: Pltfs 38 Motion to Compel Discovery is denied as moot insofar as the pltf sought to compel responses to requests for admissions, and otherwise denied for failure to comply with FRCP 37(a)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/2/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

COURTNEY C. DAVIS(#558930)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

CHAD MENZINA, ET AL

NUMBER 12-189-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before
Discovery.

the

court

is

the

Plaintiff’s

Record document number 38.

Motion

to

Compel

The motion is not opposed.

On June 20, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for the
production of documents.1
On September 10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for the
production of documents and seven requests admissions.2
Plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to respond to his
request for production of documents and requests for admissions.
A review of the record showed that after the motion to compel
was filed the defendants responded to the plaintiff’s admissions.3
Defendants have not responded to the plaintiff’s request for
production of documents.
Plaintiff argued that he sent a letter to counsel regarding
the outstanding discovery requests filed in June.

1

Record document number 8.

2

Record document numbers 26-31.

3

Record document numbers 39-43.

However, a

review of the discovery showed that it was filed before the
defendants were served with the complaint and does not contain a
certificate of service.

Plaintiff apparently did not contact

counsel for the defendants regarding the outstanding discovery
served in September.
A

party

moving

to

compel

discovery

must

include

a

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an
effort to secure the disclosure without court action. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(1).

The purpose of the rules is obvious.

It is a waste of

judicial resources to resolve discovery disputes which could be
more readily resolved if the parties simply communicated with each
other.

There was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from sending a

letter to counsel for the defendants seeking to resolve the
discovery dispute regarding the September discovery requests.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is
denied as moot insofar as the plaintiff sought to compel responses
to requests for admissions, and otherwise denied for failure to
comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 2, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2