Begolli, Bahri v. Home Depot et al

Filing 127

ORDER denying 123 motion to compel production of documents. Plaintiff is to make arrangements to meet with defendant's counsel on or before December 11, 2013. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/25/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BAHRI BEGOLLI,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-cv-380-bbc
v.
THE HOME DEPOT,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This civil case for money damages is before the court on plaintiff Bahri Begolli’s
motion to compel. Plaintiff alleges that defendant The Home Depot has not responded
properly to his requests for discovery.
Defendant objects to plaintiff’s motion on several grounds, one of which is plaintiff’s
failure to comply with his obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) to meet with defendant’s
counsel in an effort to work out his objections to defendant’s responses to his requests for
discovery. The objection is well founded. Rule 37(a) requires parties to make their own
efforts to resolve discovery disputes before they call upon the limited resources of the court
to iron out their differences.
This court will not hear plaintiff’s motion to compel until plaintiff does two things:
(1) arranges to meet with defendant’s counsel in person or by telephone to
discuss exactly what he wants in the way of discovery and the precise nature
of his objections to what defendant has already produced and

1

(2) files a new motion, limited to the specific objections he has to the answer
he has received from defendant.
Plaintiff should keep in mind that he is not necessarily entitled to ask defendant for
exactly the same kind of evidence that defendant asked him for. Plaintiff may be entitled
to obtain discovery about matters that have been the subject of questions from defendant
to him, but he is limited to discovery that is tailored to the proof that he must make at trial
(or that is likely to produce such proof). For instance, even if defendant asked him questions
about his own employment, he is not permitted to ask about the employment details of
defendant’s employees unless he can show how those details would be relevant to his claim
that defendant discriminated against him in refusing to hire him.
If, after meeting with defendant’s counsel, plaintiff still believes that he has not
received the discovery from defendant that he needs to prosecute this case, he can file a new
motion to compel. If he does so, however, he must show exactly what discovery he was
denied and how it relates to his claim. He should keep in mind that parties to a law suit are
not required to turn over discovery that is “privileged,” that is, subject to a privilege, such
as the lawyer-client privilege that protects communications between a person and her lawyer,
or discovery that would invade the privacy of a third person who is not a party to the case.
I will order plaintiff to meet with defendant’s counsel within two weeks to make a
good faith attempt to work out plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s answers to his discovery
requests. If plaintiff does not make a good faith attempt to arrange the meeting or to work
with defendant’s counsel to resolve his differences with defendant, it is probable that this
case will be dismissed.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Bahri Begolli’s motion to compel production of
documents, dkt. #123, is DENIED.

Plaintiff is to make arrangements to meet with

defendant’s counsel on or before December 11, 2013.

Failure to do so may result in

dismissal of this case.
Entered this 25th day of November, 2013.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3