Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C. v. Espinosa et al (TV2)

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 12/1/16. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
TENNESSEE CVS PHARMACY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICARDO ESPINOSA, individually, and
CLUB RIO PROMOTIONS, L.L.C.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-CV-84-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is the Defendants’ First Motion to Compel [Doc. 26], filed on
November 23, 2016. The Defendants request that the Court compel the Plaintiff to answer the
discovery served on October 10, 2016. The Defendants explain that the Plaintiff has failed to
answer any of the Interrogatories and that on November 16, 2016, the Defendants wrote to the
Plaintiff inquiring as to when the outstanding discovery would be answered and submitted. The
Defendants state that they have not received any response from the Plaintiff. The Defendants
certify that they have attempted in good faith to resolve the issue prior to seeking judicial
intervention in this matter and that they have filed the instant Motion in compliance with the
Scheduling Order.
Section 3(j) of the Scheduling Order [Doc. 16] requires parties to take certain steps
before filing motions regarding discovery disputes. First, the parties are to meet and confer in an
attempt to resolve the dispute. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they shall attempt to

resolve the dispute by conference with the Magistrate Judge. The Scheduling Order provides that
“[i]f and only if, the parties’ dispute is unresolved following the conference with the Magistrate
Judge, the parties may file appropriate written motions with the Court . . .”

Finally, “[a]ny

written motions regarding discovery shall include a certification of compliance with steps one (1)
and (2) . . .”
The Court finds that the Defendants did not follow the procedure outlined in the
Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Court finds the Defendants’ First Motion to Compel [Doc.
26] not well-taken, and it is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

2