Opinion
2:08-cv-01360 JWS
06-05-2012
SANDPIPER RESORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL REALTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 201]
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 201, plaintiffs Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation and Dourian Foster Investments, Inc. ("plaintiffs") move to compel production of certain documents. Third-party defendant Mohr, Hackett, Pederson, Blakely & Randolph, P.C. ("Mohr Hackett") responds at docket 231. Plaintiffs' reply is at docket 233. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Parties' Obligation to Confer in Good Faith
Plaintiff moves to compel production of various documents from Mohr Hackett. Mohr Hackett argues that the documents are privileged. Prior to being named a third-party defendant, Mohr Hackett responded to a subpoena to produce documents. Mohr Hackett provided approximately three thousand pages of documents and a privilege log. Mohr Hackett provided a supplemental privilege log on January 10, 2012, and another on April 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed the present motion on March 23, 2012.
Local Rule 7.2(j) provides that "[n]o discovery motion will be considered or decided unless a statement of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter." Plaintiffs' counsel attached a declaration stating that he conferred with representatives of Mohr Hackett via email. It is clear, however, from the attached email exchange and representations of counsel that there was no personal consultation.
LRCiv 7.2(j).
Doc. 201-2 at 3.
Id. at 4, 10.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) states that a "motion [to compel] must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." The email exchange indicates that plaintiffs' counsel did attempt to confer with Mohr Hackett in good faith. It also appears that Mohr Hackett was unresponsive to plaintiffs' counsel's efforts. However, plaintiffs' counsel's declaration does not certify that he attempted to confer in good faith-it erroneously states that he did confer. In any event, the parties have not met their obligation to confer in good faith, and there has been no personal consultation in an effort to resolve this dispute.
Doc. 201-2 at 4-11.
Id. at 4, 10.
--------
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, plaintiffs' motion to compel at docket 201 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute after personal consultation. It is ORDERED that the parties confer in person at a mutually agreeable time and location within ten days from the date of this order. If the parties are unable to agree on a time or location, the parties shall meet at the office of plaintiff's counsel at 9:00 a.m. on June 15, 2012.
____________
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE