May v. Phillips
Filing
73
ORDER denying 68 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Jane M Virden on 6/7/2013. (sef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
TEDDY L. MAY
VS.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:11cv00193-MPM-JMV
BOBBY PHILIPS AND
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiff to compel discovery (#68). The
defendants have responded.
The court has examined the plaintiff’s motion and defendants’ response. However,
because plaintiff’s counsel did not follow the local rule, the court is unable to consider the
motion on it’s merits. Specifically, Local Rule 37(a) provides, among other things, that “[b]efore
service of a discovery motion, counsel must confer in good faith to determine to what extent the
issue in question can be resolved without court intervention.” Counsel shall then file along with
its motion a Good Faith Certificate bearing the signature or endorsement of all counsel.
(emphasis added) Because the certificate must be signed by all counsel, the procedure often
alerts the allegedly derelict party that this is a matter of some seriousness. It also demands that
the parties confer with more than simply a letter and nothing else.
The court would note that denial of the present motion is in no way intended as a position
on the merits of the motion. Should plaintiff’s counsel attempt to confer in good faith and
receive what it believes unsatisfactory responses, and if the federal and local rules are followed,
the court will consider the matter at that time, assuming the motion has not otherwise become
moot by virtue of defendants’ recent production of documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses
(#68 ) is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of May 2013.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?