Cody et al v. City of St. Louis

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendant shall confer face-to-face in good faith, in accordance with Local Rule 3.04, by October 4, 2018, in an attempt to resolve or narrow the discovery disputes raised in Plaintiffs ' motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 40 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis motion for extension of time to respond (ECF No. 45 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant has until October 11, 2018, to respond to Plaintiffs motion to compel and for sanctions. However, Defendant's Motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/18/18. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES CODY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-CV-2707-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant City of St. Louis in
response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and request for sanctions. ECF Nos.
40, 45. Defendant requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel for failure to
comply with E.D. Mo. L.R. 3.04(A) and paragraph six of the Court’s Requirements. In
the alternative, Defendant moves for an extension of time of 28 days, up to and including
October 11, 2018, within which to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and request for
sanctions.
Although Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of its motion does include multiple
email exhibits where Plaintiffs’ counsel requested to schedule meet and confer dates with
Defendant’s counsel, the exhibits do not include Defendant’s counsel’s responses to those
requests. Also, Local Rule 3.04(A) specifically states that the parties should confer “in
person or by telephone” and that the movant’s statement on such conferences should
“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). In Plaintiffs’ motion, they state that “oral
discussions (telephonic or in-person) were attempted unsuccessfully numerous times,”
but no specific details are provided in compliance with the Local Rule. ECF No. 40 at 6.
Because it appears that Plaintiffs’ counsel has made attempts to meet and confer
on the discovery disputes, the Court will not deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel outright.
However, the Court believes that these discovery disputes could be resolved or narrowed
by direct, face-to-face discussions attempted in good faith between the parties.
Therefore, the parties will be ordered to meet and confer in person on the issues raised in
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and for sanctions. Defendant’s request for an extension of
time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendant shall confer face-toface in good faith, in accordance with Local Rule 3.04, by October 4, 2018, in an
attempt to resolve or narrow the discovery disputes raised in Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 40).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis’ motion for
extension of time to respond (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Defendant has until October 11, 2018, to respond to Plaintiff’s motion to compel
and for sanctions. However, Defendant’s Motion is denied in all other respects.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of September, 2018.
2