Bowen v. TSI Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/8/18. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-525-FDW-DCK
LISA A BOWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TSI HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion To Compel
Discovery” (Document No. 13) filed March 7, 2018. This motion has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
By the instant motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests
served on February 1, 2018. (Document No. 13, p.1). Defendant contends that responses were
due on or before March 6, 2018. Id.
First, the undersigned observes that the “Case Management Order” requires parties to
confer in good faith to attempt to resolve discovery disputes without Court intervention, and then
to request an informal telephonic conference if they fail. See (Document No. 12, pp.4-5). Here,
there has been no request for a telephone conference.
Next, the undersigned notes that the “Case Management Order” was filed on March 6,
2018, one day before the instant motion, and on the same date Defendant contends discovery

responses were due. It appears, therefore, that Defendant’s motion and discovery requests may be
premature. The Local Rules of this Court state in part:
official Court-enforceable discovery does not commence until
issuance of the Scheduling Order. While parties are encouraged to
engage in consensual discovery before such period and up to trial,
the Court will only enforce discovery that is conducted within the
context of the Scheduling Order or where leave is granted in
accordance with LCvR 16.1(f).
Local Rule 26.1.
Based on the foregoing, the instant motion will be denied. The undersigned respectfully
suggests that Defendant re-serve its discovery requests now that a Scheduling Order has been
entered by the Court. See (Document No. 12; Local Rules 16.1 and 26.1). Counsel for Defendant
is further advised to carefully review the Local Rules of this Court and the “Case Management
Order” (Document No. 12) for this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion To Compel Discovery”
(Document No. 13) is DENIED.

Signed: March 8, 2018

2