Norton et al v. Zubkoff et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Motion to Compel Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH NORTON and KENDALE FARMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-15104
Honorable David M. Lawson

RICHARD P. ZUBKOFF, LAWRENCE E. BYERS,
THOMAS LICKTEIG, DAVID MCPHERSON, and
MOWTEQ, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND TO PRESENT FOR DEPOSITION
The matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to compel response to request to
produce documents and to present for deposition. The plaintiff’s motion must be denied for failure
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local
Rules and Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 requires written motions, except those that may be heard
ex parte, to be served on every party. The plaintiffs’ motion is not one that may be heard ex parte.
The certificate of service attached to the motion does not indicate that defendant Mowteq, LLC was
served. The certificate of service also fails to indicate the date the remaining defendants were
served.
Rule 9(b) of the Court’s Electronic Filing Policies requires every paper filed electronically
to “include a signature block containing the name of the filing user represented by ‘s/’, ‘/s/’ or a
scanned signature, firm name (if applicable), street address, telephone number, primary e-mail

address, and bar ID number (where applicable).” Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to “electronically” sign
the motion and the certificate of service.
Local Rule 7.1(a) requires a movant to seek concurrence from the other parties and, if
concurrence is not obtained, state “that there was a conference between attorneys or unrepresented
parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion in which the movant explained the
nature of the motion or request and its legal basis and requested but did not obtain concurrence in
the relief sought; or despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or request, the movant was
unable to conduct a conference.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). The plaintiffs does not state in their motion
that concurrence was sought in the relief requested from the defendants before filing the motion.
“It is not up to the Court to expend its energies when the parties have not sufficiently expended their
own.” Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 101 (D. Mass. 1996). The plaintiffs have filed their
motion in violation of the applicable rules.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to compel response to request to
produce documents and to present for deposition [dkt. #23] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: September 15, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on September 15, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-