Odom v. Smith

Filing 27

NOTICE AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Trivenskey Odom. Plaintiff and Defendants must confer regarding the Motion as required by Federal Rule 37(a)(1). A certification for the 25 Motion or a Motion to Withdraw the 25 Motion shall be filed by 6/23/2017. Any Opposition the 25 Motion shall be filed by 6/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 6/11/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TRIVENSKEY ODOM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-748-SDD-EWD

JUAN SMITH, ET AL.

NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the Court is a Motion for to Compel Discovery (the “Motion”), filed by plaintiff
Trivenskey Odom.1 In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to respond to certain
interrogatories and requests for production. As of the date of this Notice and Order, Defendants
have not filed an opposition to the Motion. The Motion has been referred to the undersigned for
disposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) provides:
On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may
move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion
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 of discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.
While the Motion states that, “A Rule 37.1 conference was held on June 6, 2017, which
did not resolve the discovery disputes. Defendants maintain a joint protective agreement should
be executed prior to the production of these documents,”2 the Court finds that a supplemental
certification is necessary to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1).

1
2

R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 25-1 at 1. See also, R. Doc. 25-3.

Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendants must confer regarding the Motion as
required by Federal Rule 37(a)(1).3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file into the record in this matter a
certification for the Motion on or before Friday, June 23, 2017. The certification shall specifically
set forth (1) how the conference required by this Notice and Order was scheduled and agreed upon,
(2) who participated in the conference, (3) when the conference took place, (4) whether the
conference was conducted by phone or in person, (5) the duration of the conference, (6) the
specific, itemized topics that were addressed at the conference, and (7) whether any issues were
resolved by the parties, and, if so, the terms of the resolution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the conference required by this Notice and Order
completely resolves the Motion, Plaintiff shall file a Motion to Withdraw the Motion no later than
June 23, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the conference required by this Notice and Order
does not resolve the Motion, Defendants must file any memorandum in opposition no later than
June 27, 2017.
Plaintiff and Defendants are hereby NOTIFIED that the Court will not consider the Motion
until the required certification is filed into the record. Failure to timely file the additional
certification will result in dismissal of the Motion without further notice. Notwithstanding the fact
the parties have sought court intervention, the Court remains confident that an additional

3

To the extent counsel have conferred prior to filing the Motion, this Notice and Order requires an additional
conference.
2

conference will enable the parties to resolve many, if not all, of the issues raised in the Motion.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 11, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3