Canada v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company et al
ORDER DISMISSING 37 Motion to Quash; DISMISSING 20 Motion for Discovery; DISMISSING 20 Motion to Produce; DISMISSING 27 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (td)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2Ii MAY -3 PM 3:33
QUIANNA S. CANADA,
Case No. A-17-CA-148-SS
TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
STACY PARASTAR GONZALEZ, in her official
capacity; and MARSHA THIBODAUX, in her
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and
specifically Plaintiff Quianna S. Canada (Plaintiff)'s Second Motion to Compel Production [#20],
Defendant Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC) 's Response [#28] in opposition, and Plaintiff's
Amended Reply [#3 6] in support as well as Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Compel Ryan
Johnson's Resume [#27] and Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoena [#3 7].
In the last two weeks, Plaintiff has filed a series of discovery motions. Plaintiff's second
motion to compel asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce specific information. Second Mot.
Compel [#20]. However, Plaintiff filed this motion less than twenty-four hours after Defendants'
document production deadline, without first communicating with Defendants' counsel. Id.; see also
Resp. [#28]. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw part of her request to compel as
Defendants supplied her with some of the requested information. Mot. Withdraw [#27].
Additionally, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendants' subpoena on Evins Personnel
Consultants, Inc. (Evins), which requests Plaintiff's employment records and notices Defendants'
intent to take a deposition by written questions. Mot. Quash [#3 7].
Twice in the short life of this case the Court has entered orders directing the parties to
cooperate with one another.
Order of Mar. 24, 2017 [#14]; Order of Apr. 4, 2017 [#18].
Nevertheless, the parties still struggle to communicate and are occupying this Court's valuable time
with filings that quickly become moot, or at least partially moot, following the parties post-hoc
communication. The Court instructs the parties, especially Plaintiff, to comply with the Local Rules
of the United States District Court ofthe Western District of Texas, particularly Rule CV-7(i), which
Conference Required. The court may refuse to hear or may deny a
nondispositive motion unless the movant advises the court within the body of the
motion that counsel for the parties have first conferred in a good-faith attempt to
resolve the matter by agreement and, further, certifies the specific reason that no
agreement could be made. Movants are encouraged to indicate in the title of the
motion whether the motion is opposed. A motion is unopposed only if there has been
an actual conference with opposing counsel and there is no opposition to any of the
relief requested in the motion.1
While discovery mechanisms help the parties "develop fully and crystalize concise factual
issues for trial," the mechanisms are also intended to "conserve precious judicial energies." See
Thiokol Chem. Corp.,
483 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 1973). Filing a discovery motion with
this Court should not be the parties' first course of action when facing a potential discovery dispute.
At present, the undersigned sees no issue requiring the Court's intervention and instead directs the
parties to confer in person.
full version of the local rules
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all pending motions, specifically Plaintiff's
Second Motion to Compel Production [#20], Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Motion to
Compel [#27], and Plaintiff's Motion to Quash [#3 7], are DISMISSED; and
IT IS FiNALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel consult in person
to discuss any outstanding discovery issues within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the entry of
SIGNED this the
day of May 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?