Opinion
Case No. 3:03-cv-1027-J-25HTS.
March 1, 2005
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories (Doc. #27; Motion), filed on February 24, 2005. While Defendants apparently sent Plaintiffs a letter in regard to the subject matter of the Motion, see EXHIBIT C (Letter), attached to the Motion, they have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3.01(g), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)).
A "very important rule[,]" Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996), Local Rule 3.01(g) mandates "a substantive conversation in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the motion without court action, and does not envision an exchange of ultimatums by fax or letter." Lockheed Martin Corp. v. The Boeing Co., Case No. 6:03-cv-796-Orl-28KRS, 2003 WL 22962782, at *5 (M.D. Fla. October 21, 2003); see also Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575, at *2 n. 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000) ("Rule 3.01(g) requires counsel and unrepresented parties to . . . speak to each other in person or by telephone[.]"). Active dialogue undertaken in a good faith effort to come to an agreement is potentially much more effective than a volley of letters. In view of the importance of such effort, "Local Rule 3.01(g) is strictly enforced." United States v. Gwinn, No. 8:02-CV-1112-T-27EAJ, 2003 WL 21356785, at *2 (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2003) (citing Middle District Discovery (2001)).
Here, Defendants represent the discovery at issue was propounded nearly a year ago. See Motion at 1. Yet, they state their alleged good faith attempt at resolution occurred by a letter dated February 9, 2005. See id. at 2. Likewise, the letter, which demands all information referenced therein by February 11, 2005, see Letter at [unnumbered] 2, indicates it "will serve as a goodfaith attempt to resolve discovery issues[.]" Id. at 1. This is plainly insufficient.
Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. #27) is taken under advisement and Defendants shall, after conducting the required conference and within five (5) days of the date of this Order, file and serve an appropriate certification of compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g). Failure to do so will result in the Motion being stricken. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter without Court intervention, Plaintiffs shall, within ten (10) days of the conference conducted pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), file their response to the Motion.
DONE AND ORDERED.