Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC et al v. Americulture, Inc. et al

Filing 102

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea summarily dismissing 101 Motion to Compel. (cbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LOS LOBOS RENEWABLE POWER, LLC
and LIGHTNING DOCK GEOTHERMAL
HI-01, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:15-cv-00547-MV-KRS

AMERICULTURE, INC., a New Mexico
for profit corporation and DAMON
SEAWRIGHT, individually and as an
officer and director of AMERICULTURE
INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ second motion to compel
discovery. (Doc. 101). In the motion, Defendants admit they did not seek concurrence in the
relief requested as required by D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(a). Defendants’ papers similarly do not
demonstrate that Defendants satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)’s conditions filing a motion to compel on
“certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without action.” This meet-andconfer obligation requires a “sincere effort to see if the dispute can be resolved before a party
files a motion to compel” and “might be established by telephonic conference, contemporaneous
email communication, or the now-rare personal meeting amongst parties.” Benavidez v. Sandia
Nat'l Labs., 319 F.R.D. 696, 723 (D.N.M. 2017). Likewise, the Local Rule 7.1 requires a

Page 1 of 2

movant to determine whether a motion is opposed and provides that “a motion that omits
recitation of a good-faith request for concurrence may be summarily denied.” D.N.M.LR-Civ.
7.1(a). “[L]ocal rule 7.1’s meet-and-confer requirement is not meant to be perfunctorily
satisfied.” Benavidez, 319 F.R.D. at 723. Instead, the Local Rule “encourage parties to contact
each other . . . and work out mutually agreeable solutions . . . and pragmatic compromises on
scope-of-discovery disputes.” Id.
Here, Defendants offer two reasons for not following the Rules: “1) discovery in this case
has been continuously problematic for Defendants; and 2) Defendants’ counsel was unavailable
during the period of 11/22 through 12/2 and a Motion to Compel to address discovery objections
is required to be filed within 21 days from service[.]” (Doc. 101). None of these justifications
excuses compliance with the Federal and Local Rules. These reasons find no support in the plain
language of the applicable provisions, and Defendants point to no legal authority that suggests
their perceived difficulty and counsel’s unavailability trump the meet-and-confer obligation. The
second motion to compel is therefore deficient and the Court exercises its authority under the
Local Rule to summarily dismiss the motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED the Defendants’ second motion to compel (Doc.
101) is summarily DISMISSED.

_________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2