Ashlock et al v. BNSF Railway Company et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions to compel and for a hearing [# 17 , 18 ] and defendant's motion for more time [# 21 ] are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel must meet and confer on this matter no later than Tuesday, March 11, 2014. If they are unable to resolve the matter, they must file a joint request for a telephone conference. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 03/03/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ADAM ASHLOCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV1534 CDP

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel production of documents and for a
hearing, and defendant has filed a motion for more time to respond. It appears to
me that the parties have insufficiently conferred on this discovery dispute.
Defendant responded to plaintiffs' document requests by saying that the
documents "would be made available for copying and inspection at a time and
location mutually convenient to the parties." Plaintiffs say the documents have not
been produced, and seeks an order compelling production. Plaintiff is thus seeking
an order from me compelling defendant to do what defendant has already agreed to
do. Plaintiff sought a prompt hearing, but the court was waiting for defendant's
response to understand why a hearing was necessary if defendant had already
agreed to produce the documents. But instead of responding, defendant sought
more time to respond, because the lead counsel on this matter has left the firm.

Defendant fails to respond at all to plaintiffs' very valid point that this delay is
jeopardizing the parties' ability to comply with the schedule they themselves
proposed.
I will deny the motions and will order counsel to meet and confer about
these issues, either in person or on the telephone. If no agreement can be reached,
the parties must file a joint request for a telephone conference so that we can
quickly resolve what appears to be an unnecessary argument. If counsel believe a
modification to the schedule is required, they should file an appropriate motion,
but only after consultation with one another. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions to compel and for a
hearing [#17, 18] and defendant's motion for more time [#21] are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel must meet and confer on this
matter no later than Tuesday, March 11, 2014. If they are unable to resolve the
matter, they must file a joint request for a telephone conference.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2014.

2