Craft v. South Carolina State Plastering LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Quash without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on November 4, 2016.(jmcg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jacqueline L. Craft, Trustee of the
)
Jacqueline L. Craft Trust U/T/D June 30,
)
1998, and Jacqueline L. Craft, individually, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina State Plastering, LLC,
)
Peter Conley, Del Webb Communities, Inc., )
and Pulte Homes, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C.A. No.: 9:15-cv-5080-PMD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and to quash
subpoenas (ECF No. 32). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied without
prejudice.
Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that parties seeking a
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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Additionally, “[l]ocal Civil Rule 7.02 provides that a moving
party ‘must confer with opposing counsel and attempt in good faith to resolve the matter
contained in the motion’ before filing a nondispositive motion,” such as a motion to quash. See
Fort v. Leonard, No. 7:05-cv-1028-HFF-WMC, 2006 WL 1487034, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2006)
(quoting Local Civ. Rule 7.02 (D.S.C.)). Local Civil Rule 7.02 was adopted in hopes that the
parties might attempt to agree amongst themselves to an appropriate resolution.
In their motion, Plaintiffs have failed to provide either of the required certifications.
Thus, nothing indicates that Plaintiffs attempted to resolve this matter before filing their motion.

The Court emphasizes that these discussions must take place before calling upon the Court’s
time and resources. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied at this time, with leave to re-file if
necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order
and to quash subpoenas is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 4, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina