Pearson et al v. Logan University

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion to compel 36 is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/27/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MORGAN PEARSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LOGAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16 CV 1450 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs move to compel discovery responses from defendant. Plaintiffs’
motion will be denied because it does not comply with Local Rule 3.04 and
plaintiffs were previously warned of the importance of complying with this rule
before filing motions to compel. [30]. Moreover, plaintiffs have not attempted to
resolve this dispute in the manner required by the rule. Characterizing opposing
counsel’s approach as “highly illegal” is not a sincere effort to resolve a discovery
dispute.
In addition, my Memorandum and Order dated November 8, 2017, did not
rule on any objections to interrogatories or requests for production, nor did it
resolve a legal issue in plaintiffs’ favor as plaintiffs have claimed. It simply
permitted plaintiffs to depose Dr. Paine. While plaintiffs may be entitled to some
of the information they seek – insofar as it concerns the alleged harasser in this

case and complaints made by the students identified in Interrogatory 6 – the
discovery requests are overly broad in scope and time period. Plaintiffs’ counsel
should engage in substantive, good faith discussions with defense counsel about
how to resolve its objections before filing motions to compel. If defendant
continues to refuse production of relevant information, plaintiffs may again move
to compel production as long as the motion complies with the letter and the spirit
of Local Rule 3.04.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion to compel [36] is denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 27th day of November, 2017.

2