Rinaldi v. CCX, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER denying without prejudice 11 Motion to Compel; granting 17 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 7/22/2012. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11cv457
RICHARD A. RINALDI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CCX, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________ )

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and Amend
Scheduling Order [# 17] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [# 11]. As a threshold
matter, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Stay Discovery [# 17] nunc pro
tunc. If the District Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the
parties shall have an additional three months to conduct discovery.
In addition, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Motion to Compel
[# 11]. Upon a review of the Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Compel,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s legal brief is entirely insufficient to allow this Court
to even resolve the discovery dispute at issue. The only issue that the Court can
garner from the Plaintiff’s brief is that Defendants have not provided a privilege
log. (Pl.’s Memo. Support Mot. Compel at 4-5.) Defendants, however,

1

subsequently provided the privilege log.
Although Plaintiff wants this Court to enter an order directing Defendant to
produce other documents, Plaintiff’s brief fails to clearly articulate the nature of
the discovery dispute, what documents Plaintiff seeks, and what documents
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling. In fact, Plaintiff simply states the Court
should order Defendant to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery requests. A proper
brief in support of a motion to compel the production of documents should, at the
very least, state: (1) the discovery request at issue and what it requested; (2) any
objection to the requests; (3) explain what documents the party serving the
discovery contends that remain in the possession of the opposing party; (4) explain
how such documents are relevant; and (5) provide some form of legal argument as
to why the opposing side should be required to produce the documents. Finally,
any argument must be contained in the brief, not the motion. Plaintiff’s brief fails
to set forth this information, rending the Court unable to resolve its Motion to
Compel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel without
prejudice [# 11]. Upon the filing of a proper motion to compel and supporting
legal brief that clearly and intelligently sets forth the discovery dispute at issue, the
Court will consider whether the entry of an order compelling the production of
documents is appropriate in this case.

2

Signed: July 22, 2012

3