Garza et al v. Phillips 66 Company, et al

Filing 50

RULING AND ORDER: The 44 Motion to Compel Discovery filed by defendant Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, is denied without prejudice. Furthermore, as provided by Rule 26(d)(1); IT IS ORDERED that the parties may commence discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as of the date of this ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 7/17/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MANUEL GARZA, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-742-SDD-SCR
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
and
ORDER PERMITTING DISCOVERY
Before the court is the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by
defendant Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP.
number 44.

Record document

Plaintiffs filed an opposition.1

All of the parties’ arguments have been considered. When this
case was removed from state court the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure became applicable.

Under Rule 26(d)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

“[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

disclosures

under

Rule

26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or
by court order.”

Defendant did not assert that the parties have

held a Rule 26(f) conference, or that this case is exempt from
initial

disclosures,

or

that

some

other

rule

authorized

the

discovery, or that the parties stipulated to it, or that the court
ordered it.

1

Record document number 45.

Plaintiff
conference.

asserted

that

there

has

been

no

scheduling

This is true, but irrelevant.

A scheduling conference

is held pursuant to Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P.

A scheduling conference

is not the same as the conference require by Rule 26(f).

The fact

that a scheduling conference has not yet been held in no way
prevented the parties from having a Rule 26(f) conference.

Rule

26(f) requires that the conference be held “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).”

A

scheduling conference was set for March 13, 2014, and the status
report was due by February 27.

As provided by Rule 26(f), the

scheduling conference should have been held no later than February
20.

The parties timely filed the Status Report on February 27.2

After reviewing the Status Report and the record, on March 3 the
scheduling conference was canceled.3

This sequence of events

suggests that there must have been some conferring among the
attorneys, even if not a formal Rule 26(f) conference.4
event,

it

is

not

clear

that

2

parties

held

a

Rule

26(f)

Record document number 33.

3

the

But in any

Record document number 34.

4

The Status Report stated that “[d]iscovery has not yet been
undertaken in this matter as a result of pending jurisdictional
issues.” Record document number 33, p. 20, Section G. The Status
Report did not mention any issue regarding responding to discovery
served before the case was removed.
This should have been
discussed at a Rule 26(f) conference and noted in the Status
Report.
2

conference.
In these circumstances, the defendant’s Motion to Compel
Discovery
premature.

is

premature

because

its

discovery

requests

were

Furthermore, the defendant served more interrogatories

on each plaintiff than are allowed by Rule 33(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.,
without leave of court.

Plaintiff also argued that the scope of

some interrogatories is objectionable.

It is not necessary to

address that argument or their other substantive objections at this
time.

Since the defendant will have to re-serve the discovery

requests it can narrow the scope of them so as to avoid the
objections.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by defendant
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, is denied without prejudice.
Furthermore, as provided by Rule 26(d)(1);
IT IS ORDERED that the parties may commence discovery pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as of the date of this
ruling.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 17, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3