MAK Automation, Inc. v. Bevcorp, LLC

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel [#24] is denied without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/13/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MAK AUTOMATION,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
BEVCORP, LLC,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:12CV1809 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant
to provide additional answers to discovery that was responded to in March. It is now November.
Discovery has closed, but plaintiff still seems to think this motion is timely because the case
management order sets an absolute deadline for filing motions to compel that is eleven days after the
close of discovery. Had plaintiff bothered to bring this dispute before me when it arose, its
resolution would have likely assisted the parties in the preparation and presentation of their case.
As things stand now, I have no idea what plaintiff hopes to achieve by compelling this discovery
when there is no further opportunity to do anything with it. Moreover, plaintiff’s letter sent on
November 7, 2013, does not comply with Local Rule 3.04 which specifically requires attorneys to
confer “in person or by telephone” in an attempt to resolve their discovery dispute. For its part,
defendant has apparently promised to modify and/or produce certain discovery and then just
completely ignored its obligation to do so. This is not acceptable. I expect counsel to behave
professionally, in accordance with their ethical obligations to provide discovery as agreed, and to
resolve this dispute without further Court involvement, as I suspect neither party will be pleased if
I have to consider this request again.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [#24] is denied without
prejudice.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2013.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-