Sohi v. Diversified Consultants, Inc

Filing 21

ORDER that plaintiff provide his Rule 26 disclosures to defendant no later than 8/18/2013; the parties shall have (30) days to respond to the discovery requests propounded by the opposing party; plaintiff's 19 Motion for Sanctions is Denied; the parties shall be prepared to report on the status of discovery at the telephone conference scheduled for 8/28/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 8/14/2013. (art)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

PARNEET SOHI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-212
Beckwith, J.
Litkovitz, M.J

vs.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS,
Defendant.

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Parneet Sohi brings this action against defendant Diversified Consultants
alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. This
matter is before the Court following an informal telephone conference held on August 13, 2013
before the undersigned magistrate judge. At issue are the parties' responses to each other's
discovery requests and plaintiffs motion for sanctions. (Doc. 19).
Defendant states that it has not received Rule 26(a) disclosures from plaintiff or responses
to its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents sent to plaintiff via
regular U.S. Mail on June 14, 2013. Plaintiff states he never received defendant's discovery
requests or follow-up correspondence until a few days ago. Plaintiff states he believes he made
his Rule 26(a) disclosures, but if he discovers he did not he will forward them to defendant
forthwith.
Similarly, plaintiff states he has not received defendant's responses to his discovery
requests propounded on June 10, 2013. Defendant states that it did not receive plaintiffs
discovery requests until August 12, 2013, via Fed Ex.
Both parties admit that as ofthis date, they have received each other's respective
discovery requests.

The Court declines to recount the parties' additional representations of what may or may
not have occurred over the last few months concerning their respective discovery requests.
Suffice it to say that the parties have gotten off on the wrong foot with discovery in this case, and
the Court's goal is to facilitate the parties' discovery communications to get to the merits of this
case. After reviewing the parties' pre-conference submissions and listening to their conference
presentations, it is apparent to the undersigned that the parties' lack of effective communication
has led to the discovery disputes at issue. Sanctions against either party is not warranted at this
juncture and the Court expects that going forward the parties will accord each other the common
courtesies deserved by all litigants, such as politeness in conversation, respect for each other's
time and schedules, and an attitude of cooperation and truthfulness. As discussed at the
conference, plaintiffs motion for sanctions based on alleged misrepresentations to the Court is
denied as premature and moot. As further discussed at the conference, both plaintiff and
defendant agreed that the preferred method of communication was via their respective email
accounts, to wit: [e-mail]. [e-mail], and
[e-mail]. This does not prohibit the parties from serving subsequent discovery
requests in any manner provided for by the Federal Rules, but to avoid future disputes the parties
should consider using verifiable methods of service such as certified mail. The Court also urged
the parties to telephone each other in an effort to facilitate their communications in this case. In
addition, the Court advised that before any depositions are noticed, the parties should discuss
mutually convenient dates and times for such depositions.
It is ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff provide his Rule 26 disclosures to defendant no later

than August 18, 2013; (2) the parties shall have 30 days to respond to the discovery requests
-2-

propounded by the opposing party; (3) plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 19) is DENIED;
and (4) the parties shall be prepared to report on the status of discovery at the telephone
conference scheduled for August 28, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~~

Date:~

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-

SENDER:

coMf!L!ff

r/Jff fftT/0#

• Complete ttems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.

0

X
B. Received by (Printed Name)

Addressee

C. Date of Delivery

D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:

0

Yes

0 No

1 . Article Addressed to:

r~y'lc.e-r

sq c.,~

(().('~At'~ o ~A '{0 r"')
Q('\-tl, V H 4.S 2-'-\)

.5

3.

tceType
'ted Mail

0
0

Registered
Insured Mail

0
0

Express Mail
Return Receipt for Merchandise

oc.o.D.

7011 3500 0001 5345 9312

DYes