Belfor USA Group, Inc. v. Rainier Asset Management Company, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
BELFOR USA GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number 12-13966
Honorable David M. Lawson

RAINIER ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, SUNWEST RELIANCE
ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
EMERSONS COMMERCIAL
MANAGEMENT US, LLC, and
RAINIER SUNWEST PORTFOLIO 1, L.P.
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel
discovery responses. The plaintiff’s motion does not indicate whether plaintiff’s counsel sought
concurrence in the relief requested from counsel for the defendant, as plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff does not state in its motion that concurrence was sought from the defendant
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 plaintiff has filed its motion in violation of the applicable rules. Therefore, the Court will deny
the plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel
discovery responses [dkt. #17] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 26, 2012

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 October 26, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-