Pratt v. Alight Financial Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying without prejudice 16 Plaintiff Natalie Pratt's Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Memorandum in Support Thereof. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat the parties confer regarding the discovery dispute described in the motion via some form of live communication - for example, by phone, Teams, or in person - in an attempt to narrow or resolve the issues. Only after such live communication has fa iled to resolve the issues may the parties submit any outstanding discovery disputes to the Court's attention via a brief email to the undersigned's chambers describing the issues in one paragraph or less, copying all counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/1/22. (mga)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:21-CV-427-MOC-DCK NATALIE PRATT, Plaintiff, v. ALIGHT FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ALIGHT SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff Natalie Pratt’s Motion To Compel Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents And Memorandum In Support Thereof” (Document No. 16) filed July 29, 2022. 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 and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion without prejudice. The undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s Motion is deficient for two reasons. First, the Motion fails to demonstrate compliance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(b), which requires that “counsel have conferred and attempted in good faith to resolve areas of disagreement.” See LCvR 7.1(b). Additionally, Judge Cogburn’s “Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan” (Document No. 13) requires that a motion to compel “include a statement by the movant that the parties have conferred in good faith with each other.” (Document No. 13, p. 5). Second, the Motion was filed without first “request[ing] a conference with the Magistrate Judge,” which is required per Judge Cogburn’s Pretrial Order before the parties “fil[e] a disputed motion for an order relating to discovery.” Id. at p. 4. Case 3:21-cv-00427-MOC-DCK Document 18 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff Natalie Pratt’s Motion To Compel Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents And Memorandum In Support Thereof” (Document No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties confer regarding the discovery dispute described in the motion via some form of live communication – for example, by phone, Teams, or in person – in an attempt to narrow or resolve the issues. Only after such live communication has failed to resolve the issues may the parties submit any outstanding discovery disputes to the Court’s attention via a brief email to the undersigned’s chambers describing the issues in one paragraph or less, copying all counsel: Emily_Stewart@ncwd.uscourts.gov Dustin_Taylor@ncwd.uscourts.gov. SO ORDERED. Signed: August 1, 2022 2 Case 3:21-cv-00427-MOC-DCK Document 18 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2 and

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?