Bennett v. Johnson et al
Filing
119
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 108 Motion to Compel; denying 109 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (jcm, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EDWARD BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.09-CV-612-TCK-FHM
LASHEDDA JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Request [Dkt. 108] and Plaintiff’s Request
for Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Answers/Objections [Dkt. 109] are DENIED.
The motions do not contain a certificate of service as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(d). Nor do the motions otherwise indicate that they were served on counsel for
Defendants.1 Defendants have not filed a response, which further indicates that they
have not received the motions. Under these circumstances the motions cannot be
granted.2
SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2011.
1
2
The attachm ents to the Motion to Com pel [Dkt. 108, p. 2] are unreadable.
Motions for orders com pelling discovery “m ust include a certification that the m ovant has in good
faith conferred or attem pted to confer with the person or party failing to m ake disclosure or discovery in an
effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(A)(1). Local Civil Rule 37.1 provides that the court
will refuse to hear m otions for discovery that do not advise that counsel have personally m et and conferred
in good faith and, after a sincere attem pt to resolve difference, they have been unable to reach an accord.
The subject m otions do not contain the required certification.
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?