Taylor et al v. Michelin North America, Inc.

Filing 274

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 261 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DENNIS TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et
al.,

Case No. 14-CV-293-JED-FHM

Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, [Dkt. 261], is before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for decision. The Defendants filed a brief opposing Plaintiffs’
motion. [Dkt. 263]. No reply brief has been filed.
Plaintiffs’ motion does not contain the statement required by LCvR 37.1 advising
that “counsel personally have met and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attempt
to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an accord.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1) (a motion for protective order “must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to
resolve the dispute without court action.”). Nor does Plaintiffs’ motion include “a verbatim
recitation of each [discovery request] which is the subject of the motion” as required by
LCvR 37.2(d). Plaintiffs’ motion is denied on the basis that it does not comply with
foregoing provisions of the local rules.

The following comments are made to guide counsel on the conduct of the meet
and confer 1 required by LCvR 37.1. The court does not view 25 requests for admission
directed to each Plaintiff by each of the two Defendants in this case to be an excessive
number. The content of the requests for admissions discussed in Plaintiffs’ brief suggests
that, through engaging in the good faith and sincere attempt to resolve differences
required by LCvR 37.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), counsel should be able to come to
some agreement as to stipulations about the matters addressed in the requests for
admissions.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, [Dkt. 261], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2019.

As a general rule, the court does not view the exchange of email correspondence as satisfying the meet
and confer requirement. Counsel are required to actively engage in some personal discussion.
1

2