Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. PDX, Inc, et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, for Sanctions, and in the Alternative to Extend Discovery for the Purpose of Taking Noticed Deposition (ECF No. 146 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 12/20/2016. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
PDX. INC. et al. ,
Case No. 4:14CV1805 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, for Sanctions, and in the
Alternative to Extend Discovery for the Purpose of Taking Noticed Deposition ("Motion"; ECF
No. 146). Plaintiffs Motion, however, fails to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04(A), which
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.
See Cotton v. AT&T Operations, Inc., No. 4:06-CV-438 CAS, 2007 WL 465625, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
Feb. 8, 2007). Based upon the failure to comply with this Court' s procedures and the premature
filing of this discovery motion, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion, without prejudice. Plaintiff
may refile this Motion, if necessary, once it has properly discussed this issue with opposing
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, for Sanctions, and in the
Alternative to Extend Discovery for the Purpose of Taking Noticed Deposition (ECF No. 146) is
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 20th day of December, 2016.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?