Martin v. R&S Custom Hauling, LLC et al
ORDER denying 286 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed on 11/13/2023 by Magistrate Judge David P. Rush. (DO)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DANIEL W. MARTIN,
ROGER L. GALLA, et al.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. 286.) Plaintiff moves for an order
compelling Defendants Schneider National Carriers, Inc. and Loggins Logistics, Inc. to produce
camera footage and ESI from the relevant timeframe of the collision at issue.
Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1(a)(1), before filing a written discovery motion, counsel must
confer or attempt to confer “by telephone or in person with opposing counsel” about the dispute.
An email does not satisfy this requirement. Local Rule 37.1(a)(2) further provides that if the matter
remains unresolved after conferring, the parties must submit to a telephone conference with the
judge. The local rule specifically prohibits the filing of a written discovery motion until after a
telephone conference is held. Here, Plaintiff’s motion shows no compliance with L.R. 37.1.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply
with Local Rule 37.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ David P. Rush
DAVID P. RUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATE: November 13, 2023
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?