Moseley v. Washington Department of Corrections et al
ORDER denying the 44 Motion to Compel and denying the 47 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(James Moseley, Prisoner ID: 322627)(CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JAMES DALE MOSELEY,
CASE NO. C16-5698 BHS-JRC
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
Before the Court are two motions to compel filed by plaintiff. Dkts. 44, 47. The Court
denies both motions because plaintiff did not include a certification that he conferred with
counsel for defendants before he filed his motion.
In his first motion, plaintiff asks the Court to compel defendants to produce medical
documents pertaining to hospital trips. Dkt. 44. In his second motion, plaintiff moves for the
Court to compel defendants to produce an IMS Committee meeting agenda from July 8, 2016.
Dkt. 47. Neither of plaintiff’s motions include a certificate that plaintiff has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with counsel for defendants. See Dkts. 44, 47. In response to
ORDER - 1
plaintiff’s motion, counsel for defendants submits a declaration, stating that plaintiff has not
made any efforts to contact defendants regarding his discovery requests and that the parties have
not met and conferred. Dkts. 48, 49 at ¶ 7 (Declaration of Marko Pavela, Counsel for
While a party may apply to the court for an order compelling discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P.
37 and LCR 37(a)(1) require the movant to first meet and confer with the party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. In addition, when
filing a motion to compel, the movant must include a certification, in the motion or in a
declaration or affidavit, that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court
action. The certification must list the date, manner, and participants to the conference. If the
movant fails to include such a certification, the Court may deny the motion without addressing
the merits of the dispute. See LCR 37(a)(1).
Plaintiff has failed to meet his requirements under the local court rule by not conferring
with defendants’ counsel by telephone or providing a certification of compliance with this rule.
Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motions to compel (Dkts. 44, 47).
Dated this 4th day of May, 2017.
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER - 2
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?