Rodriguez v. Hemit et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Discovery; denying Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Compel Sanctions and Attorney Fees; and denying Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. Mail)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6

7 JERARDO RODRIGUEZ,
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
SOHI HEMIT, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C16-778-RAJ
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and on both
of his Motions to Compel Sanctions and Attorney Fees. Dkt. ## 32, 33, 36. Plaintiff is not

14

satisfied with how the Government responded to his discovery requests. However, Plaintiff
15

concedes that he failed to meet and confer with the Government prior to filing his motions.

16 Dkt. # 36. This is a violation of the Court’s local rules. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
17 37(a)(1). The Court may deny a motion to compel on this ground alone. Id. (stating that if
18 a party fails to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel, the Court “may deny the
19 motion without addressing the merits of the dispute.”). The Court exercises such discretion
20

and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2017.

21
22

A

23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER-1