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