Awah v. Commonwealth Financial Systems
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 17 Plaintiff's motion to compel, GRANTING 19 Defendant's motion to seal, and SEALING Exhibit 1 attached to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 18-1) (c/m to Plaintiff 12/9/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/9/13. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
EDMUND AWAH
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 13-0707
:
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Edmund Awah, proceeding pro se, commenced this
action on March 7, 2013, by filing a complaint against Defendant
Commonwealth Financial Systems alleging violation of the Fair
Debt
Collection
Practices
Act,
15
U.S.C.
§§
1692
et
seq.
(“FDCPA”), related to “Defendant fil[ing] a derogatory report of
Plaintiff’s
credit
file[.]”
(ECF
No.
1).
Along
with
complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed
forma
pauperis.
On
April
2,
the
court
granted
his
in
Plaintiff’s
motion and advised that “additional information must be provided
before
this
matter
may
supplement the complaint.
filed
a
supplement,
was
commenced.
effected,
directing
(ECF No. 3).
providing
substance of his claims.
service
proceed,”
Plaintiff
to
On April 23, Plaintiff
additional
detail
as
to
the
Thereafter, a summons was issued,
Defendant
answered,
and
discovery
On
compel
November
discovery,
19,
Plaintiff
seeking
filed
more
the
pending
complete
motion
responses
to
interrogatory and one request for production of documents.
No. 17).
to
one
(ECF
Defendant has opposed the motion, arguing that it is
procedurally improper and untimely.1
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), “[o]n notice to other
parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order
compelling
disclosure
or
discovery,”
which
“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 or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.”
See
also
Local
Rule
104.7
(“The
Court
will
not
consider any discovery motion unless the moving party has filed
a
certificate
reciting
(a)
the
date,
time
and
place
of
the
discovery conference, and the names of all persons participating
therein, or (b) counsel’s attempts to hold such a conference
without success; and (c) an itemization of the issues requiring
resolution
by
the
Court.”).
Local
Rule
104.8
sets
forth
a
specific procedure regarding the filing of a motion to compel.
Subsection (a) provides, in relevant part, “[i]f a party who has
1
Along with its opposition papers, Defendant filed a motion
to seal an attached exhibit containing private information about
Plaintiff. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff has not opposed this motion
and the documents Defendant seeks to seal contain confidential
personal information.
Such documents are properly subject to
sealing in accordance with the court’s policy and practice, and
Defendant has properly attached a redacted version.
2
propounded
interrogatories
or
requests
for
production
[of
documents] is dissatisfied with the response to them and has
been
unable
to
communications)
resolve
any
informally
disputes
with
the
(by
oral
or
responding
written
party,
that
party shall serve a motion to compel within thirty (30) days of
the
party’s
receipt
of
the
response.”
Local
Rule
104.8.a.
Under subsection (b), “[c]ounsel are encouraged to confer with
one another before or immediately after a motion to compel is
served,” and “[i]f they are unable to resolve their disputes,
counsel must hold the conference required by [Local Rule 104.7]
after serving upon one another all of the documents relating to
the motion to compel.”
Plaintiff’s
procedure.
Local Rule 104.8.b.
motion
is
not
in
compliance
with
this
Specifically, there is no indication that a motion
to compel was ever served upon Defendant prior to its filing
with
the
service
court,
was
much
less
effected.
that
Indeed,
a
conference
Plaintiff
has
was
not
held
after
filed
the
certificate required by Local Rule 104.7, nor, apparently, could
he do so in good faith.
Moreover, the record reflects that
Defendant served its discovery responses on October 3; thus,
Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 19, was untimely pursuant to
Local Rule 104.8.a.
3
Accordingly, it is this 9th day of December, 2013, by the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland,
ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17) BE, and the
same hereby IS, DENIED;
2.
Defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 19) BE, and the
same hereby IS, GRANTED;
3.
Exhibit
1,
attached
to
Defendant’s
response
to
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 18-1) BE, and the same
hereby IS, SEALED; and
4.
Memorandum
The
clerk
Opinion
is
and
directed
Order
to
to
transmit
counsel
for
copies
of
Defendant
this
and
directly to Plaintiff.
_________/s/________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?