Berry v. Thrasher et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Order to compel discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

CHEWETO AHMED BERRY,
Plaintiff,

9

CASE NO. C13-5065 RBL-KLS
ORDER

v.
10
TIMOTHY M THRASHER,
11
Defendant.
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff states
14
that he has asked for certain documents three times, but plaintiff does not identify what the
15
documents are. Id. Defendants respond stating that they have answered or made proper
16
objections to all discovery requests and that plaintiff has failed to meet and confer either in
17
person or by telephone prior to bringing this motion. ECF No. 34. Neither party identifies what
18
information plaintiff is seeking.
19
The Court finds that the motion should be denied because plaintiff did not include a
20
certification that he conferred with counsel for defendants before he filed this motion.
21
See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). In addition, “[a] good faith effort to confer with a party or person
22
not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephonic conference.”
23
See, Local Rule CR 37(a)(1).
24

ORDER- 1

1

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy

2 of this Order to Plaintiff.
3

Dated this 17 day of December, 2013.

4

A

5
6

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER- 2