Higgins et al v. Dankiw et al

Filing 161

ORDER denying 158 Motion to Compel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ELIZABETH HIGGINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOACHIM DANKIW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:08CV15

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel to Defendant City
of Omaha (Filing No. 158). The plaintiffs’ motion is deficient for failing to comply with the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska Civil Rules. First, the plaintiffs
failed to file a brief in support of their motion. See NECivR 7.0.1(a). Second, as noted by
the defendants in their opposing brief (Filing No. 160), the plaintiffs failed to indicate
compliance with NECivR 7.0.1, which provides:
To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, this court
only considers a discovery motion in which the moving party,
in the written motion, shows that after personal consultation
with opposing parties and sincere attempts to resolve
differences, the parties cannot reach an accord. This showing
must also state the date, time, and place of the
communications and the names of all participating persons.
“Personal consultation” means person-to-person conversation,
either in person or on the telephone. An exchange of letters,
faxes, voice mail messages, or emails is also personal
consultation for purposes of this rule upon a showing that
person-to-person conversation was attempted by the moving
party and thwarted by the nonmoving party.
See NECivR 7.0.1(i). Since the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing, the motion will be
denied without prejudice. Upon consideration,
IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff’s Motion to Compel to Defendant City of Omaha (Filing No. 158) is
denied, without prejudice.
DATED this 3rd day of August, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge