Van De Mark v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc.'s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 11] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/8/2012. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SAMANTHA VAN DE MARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
GATEWAY HOTEL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-618 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc.’s motion to
compel written discovery answers and production of documents.
Eastern District Local Rule 3.04(A) provides with respect to motions concerning discovery
and disclosure:
The Court will not consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless
it contains a statement that movant’s counsel has conferred in person or by
telephone with the opposing counsel in good faith or has made reasonable efforts to
do so, but that after sincere efforts to resolve their dispute, counsel are unable to
reach an accord. This statement also shall recite the date, time and manner of such
conference, and the names of the individuals participating therein, or shall state with
specificity the efforts made to confer with opposing counsel.
E.D. Mo. L.R. 3.04(A) (emphasis added).
Defendant certified in its motion that it had made a good faith effort to resolve this discovery
dispute in that its attorney detailed its objections to plaintiff’s discovery responses in a written letter
to plaintiff’s counsel, and “invited Plaintiff’s counsel to call the undersigned to discuss any remaining
disagreements.” See Doc. 11 at 1. Despite this written invitation, plaintiff’s counsel did not call
defense counsel or otherwise respond to the letter.

The Court has reviewed the correspondence sent to plaintiff’s counsel, and it finds defense
counsel did not make a reasonable effort to confer in person or by telephone with the opposing
counsel, as required by the local rule. The sending of correspondence concerning discovery is
insufficient to constitute a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute under the local rule. At the very
least, an attempt should be made to telephone opposing counsel. As a result of defendant’s failure
to comply with Local Rule 3.04(A), the Court will not consider the instant motion and will deny the
same without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc.’s motion to
compel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 11]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

8th

day of August, 2012.

2