Rhea et al v. Shell Rapid Lube, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 10/27/14. (kbt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

JOSEPH L. RHEA, JR., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated,
and CHRIS SELF, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated

V.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL CASE NO.3:13CV315-SA-A

RAPID SHELL LUBE, LLC
AND SHANE STRICKLAND,
INDIVIDUALLY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

The defendants filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline and to compel deposition
dates. Docket 24. Defendants assert plaintiffs have failed to respond to multiple requests to
provide available dates for the three plaintiffs’ depositions. As of the date of filing, plaintiffs
have not responded either to defendants’ requests or to the motion. Although defendants have
provided correspondence to plaintiffs counsel requesting that plaintiffs agree to an extension of
the discovery deadline and provide available dates for the depositions, defendants did not attach
a signed copy of a Good Faith Certificate or an affidavit stating that no signed certificate could
be obtained. L. U. Civ. R. 37(a).
Based on the defendants’ assertions1the court would normally find the motion well taken.
Notwithstanding, “[f]ailure to comply with . . .” the requirements of L. U. Civ. R. 37(a) or (b)
“will result in a denial of the motion without prejudice to the party, who may refile the motion

1

Plaintiffs’ response is not yet due under the rules. L. U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4).

upon conformity with the rule.” L. U. Civ. R. 37(c). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED
That defendants’ motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Defendants may re-file
the motion upon compliance with L. U. Civ. R. 37. The court reminds counsel for plaintiffs that
if the defendants do comply with the requirement of certification and are required to move again
for an order directing plaintiffs to provide dates for depositions, under Rule 37(a)(5), unless
failure to respond was substantially justified or sanctions would otherwise be unjust, “the court
must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated
the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable
expenses incurred in making the motion.”
THIS, the 27th day of October, 2014.

/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2