From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodbys Creek, LLC v. Arch Insurance Company

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
Dec 16, 2008
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-947-J-34HTS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-947-J-34HTS.

December 16, 2008


ORDER


This cause is before the Court on Defendant Arch Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Security Real Estate Services, Inc. to Respond to Subpoena and First Request for Production of Documents (Doc. #88; Motion), filed on December 8, 2008. While Arch Insurance Company (Arch) maintains it "conferred with counsel for Security [Real Estate Services, Inc. (Security)] in writing[,]" prior to filing this Motion, Motion at 8; see also letter dated November 24, 2008, attached to the Motion as Exhibit C (Letter), it has not complied with 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[.]" Lockheed Martin Corp. v. The Boeing Co., No. 6:03-cv-796-Orl-28KRS, 2003 WL 22962782, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 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 . . . to . . . speak to each other in person or by telephone[.]"). 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. Apr. 25, 2003) (citing Middle District Discovery (2001)).

Here, the alleged good faith attempt consists of a single letter detailing "Security's failure to respond to Arch's Subpoena and First Request for Production[,]" Motion at 6, and stating "[i]f [the] documents are not received by December 5, 2008, [it] will have no choice but to file a motion to compel[.]" Letter. The Motion does not reflect any further attempts at resolution.

The Court has already emphasized the importance of Rule 3.01(g). See Order (Doc. #81), filed on September 11, 2008.

Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. #88) is STRICKEN without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent motion if necessary, following compliance with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g).

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida.


Summaries of

Goodbys Creek, LLC v. Arch Insurance Company

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
Dec 16, 2008
CASE NO. 3:07-cv-947-J-34HTS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2008)
Case details for

Goodbys Creek, LLC v. Arch Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:GOODBYS CREEK, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Plaintiff, v…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

Date published: Dec 16, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-947-J-34HTS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2008)

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Berkman

A number of judges in the Middle District of Florida have construed the mandates of Rule 3.01(g) to "mean to…

U.S. v. Fleming

" Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 876 (M.D. Fla. 1996). A number of magistrate judges in the Middle…