Higgins et al v. Dankiw et al

Filing 161

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

Download PDF
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

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?