Warren v. State of Washington et al

Filing 41

ORDER that the Court will take not action on the document filed at ECF Nos. 39 and 40 , signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. (CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

RICHARD H. WARREN,

8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C11-5686 BHS/KLS

v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS
CENTER, ERIC JACKSON, DAN
VAN OGLE, PAT GLEBE, CUS
SHANAHAN, WILLIAM COPLAND,
and ABRAM CLARK,

ORDER DENYING “OBJECTIONS” TO
DISCOVERY

14
Defendants.

15
16

On April 2 and 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed “Objections and Responses to Defendants’

17

Objections, Answers, and Responses” to discovery. ECF Nos. 39 and 40. Within these

18

documents, Plaintiff asks the Court, inter alia, to compel the Defendants to provide complete and

19

entire responses to his discovery requests. These documents were not filed as motions to compel

20

and neither document contained a certification by Plaintiff that he has conferred with counsel for

21
22
23

Defendants in an attempt to resolve any discovery dispute.
While a party may apply to the court for an order compelling discovery “upon reasonable

24

notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby,” the motion must also include a

25

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or

26

party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without
ORDER- 1

1

court intervention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). In addition, “[a] good faith effort to confer with

2

a party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a

3

telephonic conference.” Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A).

4

The Court anticipates that the parties will confer and make a good faith effort to resolve

5
any discovery disputes without Court interference. If the parties cannot amicably resolve this
6
7

issue, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel, and shall include a certification stating that their

8

efforts were unsuccessful, and shall identify those areas of disagreement that remain unresolved.

9

The Court will not address any motion which lacks such a certification.

10

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

11

(1)

The Court will take no action on the documents filed at ECF Nos. 39 and 40.

(2)

The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel

12
13

for Defendants.
14
15

DATED this 12th day of April, 2012.

A

16
17

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER- 2