Rodriguez v. Hemit et al
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)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 JERARDO RODRIGUEZ,
SOHI HEMIT, et al.,
Case No. C16-778-RAJ
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
satisfied with how the Government responded to his discovery requests. However, Plaintiff
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
and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
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?