Little v. Rummel et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying 26 Motion to Compel without prejudice. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Park W. Little,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Charles A. Rummel, Stewart Stenberg,
)
Matthew Kolling, and Clarence A.
)
Tuhy, in their official and individual
)
capacities; City of Dickinson, ND; County )
of Stark, ND,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Case No. 1:12-cv-113

Before the court is a Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff on May 31, 2013. Plaintiff is
seeking an order from the court compelling Defendants Rummel, Stenberg, Kolling, and the City
of Dickinson to (1) answer the Interrogatories he served upon them on February 28, 2013, and (2)
produce the 2007 edition of the City of Dickinson’s Employee Handbook/Manual.
Defendants Rummel, Stenberg, Kolling, and the City of Dickinson filed a response in
opposition to plaintiff’s motion on June 10, 2013. First, they aver that, when counting the subparts,
plaintiff’s Interrogatories far exceed the number permitted by the court’s scheduling order. Second,
they aver that they were willing work with plaintiff to resolve this issue without involving the court.
Third, they aver that plaintiff’s motion is premature to the extent that he filed it before contacting
the court.
The court previously ordered that the following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to
the filing of any discovery motions:
1)

The parties are strongly encouraged to informally resolve all discovery issues
and disputes without the necessity of Court intervention. In that regard, the
1

2)

3)

4)

parties are first required to confer and fully comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 by undertaking a
sincere, good faith effort to try to resolve all differences without Court action
or intervention;
In the event that reasonable, good faith efforts have been made by all parties
to confer and attempt to resolve any differences, without success, the parties
are then required to schedule a telephonic conference with the Magistrate
Judge in an effort to try to resolve the discovery dispute prior to the filing of
any motions. The parties shall exhaust the first two steps of the process
before any motions, briefs, memorandums of law, exhibits, deposition
transcripts, or any other discovery materials are filed with the Court.
If the dispute still cannot be resolved following a telephonic conference with
the Magistrate Judge, then the Court (Magistrate Judge) will entertain a
motion to compel discovery, motion for sanctions, motion for protective
order, or other discovery motions. In connection with the filing of any such
motions, the moving party shall first fully comply with all requirements of
Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1
and shall submit the appropriate certifications to the Court as required by
those rules.
The Court will refuse to hear any discovery motion unless the parties have
made a sincere, good faith effort to resolve the dispute and all of the
above-identified steps have been strictly complied with. A failure to fully
comply with all of the prerequisite steps may result in a denial of any motion
with prejudice and may result in an award of costs and reasonable attorney's
fees.

(Docket No. 15).
Plaintiff did not endeavor to schedule a telephonic conference with the undersigned prior to
filing his Motion to Compel. Moreover, he did not certify in his Motion to Compel to having made
a good faith effort to confer with Defendants Rummel, Stenberg, Kolling, and the City of Dickinson.
His Motion to Compel (Docket No. 26) is therefore DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2013.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2