Scott v. General Motors Components Holding LLC

Filing 58

DECISION & ORDER Scott's motion to compel 36 is denied. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/25/2024. (DAF)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Lucretia Scott.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
LUCRETIA SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION & ORDER
22-CV-6280DGL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPONENTS
HOLDING, LLC, Labor Relations Department,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
Currently pending before the Court is a motion to compel filed by plaintiff
Lucretia Scott. (Docket # 36). Scott seeks an order compelling defendant to produce several
categories of documents, including: (1) employee files and reports relating to Scott; (2) medical
records; (3) interdepartmental statements from “Sedgewick Doctors”; (4) Scott’s grievances and
related minutes; (5) information concerning Scott supplied by defendant to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; and, (6) information concerning Scott supplied by
defendant to the union. (Id.).
Defendant, General Motors Components Holdings, LLC (“General Motors”),
opposes the motion, maintaining that it is untimely and that Scott failed to attempt to meet and
confer in good faith prior to seeking Court intervention to resolve the issues raised by the
motion. (Docket # 44). In addition, General Motors maintains that it has produced the relevant
documents in its possession that are responsive to Scott’s request. (Id.).
Applicable rules of civil procedure require the parties to confer or attempt to
confer in good faith to try to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention before filing a
motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Specifically, Rule 37(a)(1) requires a party to file a

certification representing that, prior to filing the motion, the party “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.” Id. The absence of the required certification alone may justify
denial of the motion to compel. See, e.g., Rech v. Monroe Cnty., 2020 WL 5027545, *5
(W.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying motion to compel where moving papers did not contain certification
required by Rule 37(a)(1)); Daniels v. Murphy, 2012 WL 5463072, *4 (D. Ct. 2012) (“plaintiff
has not included a certification that he made an effort to resolve the dispute pertaining to his
request for production of . . . [the] file prior to filing the motion . . . [and thus] has not satisfied
Federal Rule 37(a)(1)[;] [a]ccordingly, the motion to compel is denied without prejudice”).
Scott’s filing does not contain the required certification or otherwise demonstrate that the
mandated conferral took place.
In any event, General Motors is correct that the motion is untimely because Scott
filed the motion on September 1, 2023, approximately three weeks after the deadline for motions
to compel set in this Court’s Scheduling Order. (Docket ## 33, 36). Further, General Motors
has represented that they have produced, among other things, Scott’s personnel file, disciplinary
records, grievances, investigation reports and notes related to Scott; medical records, and
worker’s compensation records. (Docket # 44 at 3). Thus, according to General Motors, it is
unclear what documents Scott seeks that have not already been produced. (Id.).
On this record, Scott’s motion to compel (Docket # 36) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: Rochester, New York
September 25, 2024
2