Oram v. Repko-Cayer et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 31 , 33 , 35 Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 4/19/2012. Mailed to Oram. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GARY ORAM, JR.,
Cause No. CV 11-00026-BU-RFC-CSO
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL
JAMES DOLAN, KEN
PETERSON, and DON
Pending are Plaintiff Gary Oram's Motions to Compel. Court Doc.
31, 33, 35. Oram has failed to comply with Rule 37 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) and therefore the motions
will be denied without prejudice.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires motions
to compel to "include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to
make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action." Similarly, Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) provides that, "[t]he text of the
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL – CV 11-00026-BU-RFC-CSO / PAGE 1
motion must state that other parties have been contacted and state
whether any party objects to the motion." The Court previously
provided Mr. Oram with a copy of both rules. See Court Doc. 28-1, pp.
12, 16. There is no required certification in any of the motions filed by
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oram's Motions to
Compel (Court Doc. 31, 33, 35) are denied without prejudice. Oram may
refile these motions only if he first confers with Defendants' counsel and
is unable to resolve the discovery issues without Court action.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2012.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL – CV 11-00026-BU-RFC-CSO / PAGE 2
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?