Blakeney v. Karr et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

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

4
5
6

OLUJIMI AWABH BLAKENEY,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

No. C13-5076 BHS/KLS

v.
SUSAN KARR, SGT. BRASWELL,
C/O LARSON, CRAIG ADAMS,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

10
Defendants.

11
12

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff states

13

that despite an agreement to provide responses during the week of July 18-19, Defendants have

14

failed to provide him with responses to his first requests for production, interrogatories, and

15

admissions. Id. The Court finds that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not

16

include a certification that he conferred with counsel for Defendants before he filed his motion.

17
18

While a party may apply to the court for an order compelling discovery “upon reasonable

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
telephonic conference.” Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A).
25
26
ORDER- 1

1

The Court notes that in a letter dated “6/[illegible]/13 to Mr. Wist, Plaintiff requested a

2

telephonic meeting prior to June 27, 2013. ECF No. 33 at 4. It is unclear whether the parties

3

have conferred and what was discussed. However, the Court anticipates that the parties will

4

confer and make a good faith effort to resolve their discovery disputes without Court

5
interference. If the parties cannot amicably resolve their issues, Plaintiff may file a motion to
6
7

compel, which shall include a certification stating that their efforts were unsuccessful and he

8

shall specifically identify those areas of disagreement that remain unresolved. The Court will

9

not address any motion which lacks such a certification.

10

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

11

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

(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 1st day of August, 2013.

A

16
17

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

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