Joint Technology Inc v. Weaver et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying as premature 84 plaintiff Joint Technology, Inc. d/b/a Revert Systems' Application for Order in Aid of Discovery and Sanctions (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 1/30/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. d/b/a
REVERT SYSTEMS, an Oklahoma
Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant,
v.
GARY KENT WEAVER, JR.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant,
GARY KENT WEAVER, JR.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JIM PATTON,
Third-Party Defendant,
WEAVER MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,
Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-846-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Joint Technology, Inc. d/b/a Revert Systems’ (“Joint”)
Application for Order in Aid of Discovery and Sanctions, filed December 26, 2012. On January 9,
2013, defendant Gary Kent Weaver, Jr. (“Weaver”) and Intervenor Weaver Medical Group, Inc.
(“Weaver Medical”) filed their response. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
Local Rule 37.1 provides, in pertinent part:
With respect to all motions or objections relating to discovery
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 and 45, this Court shall
refuse to hear any such motion or objection unless counsel for movant

first advises the Court in writing 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. However, no
personal conference shall be required where the movant’s counsel
represents to the Court in writing that movant’s counsel has conferred
with opposing counsel by telephone and (1) the motion or objection
arises from failure to timely make a discovery response, or (2)
distance between counsels’ offices renders a personal conference
infeasible.
In the case at bar, Joint has not advised the Court in writing that it has conferred with counsel
for Weaver and Weaver Medical in good faith to resolve the discover dispute. Furthermore, Weaver
and Weaver Medical contend that Joint has not conferred with Weaver and Weaver Medical’s
counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Joint’s Application for Order in Aid of Discovery and
Sanctions [docket no. 84] as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2013.

2