State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Allied and Associates et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 80 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 11-10710
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
ALLIED AND ASSOCIATES, GARY M. LAPPIN,
JANEL SYKES, SYKES DERWIN, KRISTY
JACKSON, APRIL CONWAY, LINDA HUNTER,
BRUCE GOODMAN, JOHNNIE GOODMAN, SR.,
JOHNNIE GOODMAN, JR., LORETTA TURNBOW,
LYNETTE HURT-HATTER, KENYATTA MILLER,
and LORAINA CHAPMAN,
Defendants,
and
LYNETTE HURT-HATTER,
Counter claimant,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Counter defendant.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion for protective order staying
discovery pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. The defendants’ motion does not indicate
whether defendants’ counsel sought concurrence in the relief requested from counsel for the
plaintiff, as defendants’ counsel was obliged to do under the local rules. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a).
In this district, movants must seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing a motion for
relief in this Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). If concurrence is obtained, the parties then may present

a stipulated order to the Court. If concurrence is not obtained, Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires that the
moving party state in the motion that “there was a conference between the attorneys . . . in which
the movant explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis and requested but did not obtain
concurrence in the relief sought [ ] or . . . despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion, the
movant was unable to conduct a conference.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2).
The defendants do not state in their motion that concurrence was sought from the plaintiff
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 defendants have filed their motion in violation of the applicable rules. Therefore, the Court will
deny the defendants’ motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for protective order [dkt. #80] is
DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: December 9, 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 December 9, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-