From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shoppell v. Schrader

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
Aug 13, 2009
CAUSE NO. 1:08-CV-284 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 13, 2009)

Summary

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Hinchman v. Gen. Motors

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 1:08-CV-284.

August 13, 2009


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket # 47) that Defendant Whitley County Council filed on August 12, 2009. Because Defendant has not shown that it has complied with the meet and confer requirement of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 37.1, the Motion to Compel will be DENIED at this time.

Background

Briefly stated, this case involves claims by Leanne C. Shoppell as the representative of the Estate of Larry Walkup, who died while incarcerated in the Whitley County Jail. This discovery dispute arises from the Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant Whitley County Council's interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendant explained in its motion that Plaintiff's discovery was due on July 6, 2009, and after receiving no response as of July 24, 2009, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter requesting a response by August 3, 2009. (Mot. to Compel ¶ 1-2.) By August 5, Defendant still had not received a response, and it attempted to follow up with a phone call. (Mot. to Compel ¶ 3.) The motion does not indicate whom Defendant's counsel spoke with, but merely states that "Plaintiff's counsel's law office indicated that they hoped to have the discovery answers shortly." (Mot. to Compel ¶ 3.) Having received no response, Defendant filed the instant motion on August 12, 2009. (Docket # 47.)

Discussion

Local Rule 37.1(a) provides that the certification required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) "shall recite, in addition to the information required under the appropriate Federal Rule, the date, time, and place of the conference or attempted conference and the names of all persons participating therein." The certification must be made in a separate document filed contemporaneously with the motion. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37.1(c).

As the Local Rule implies, a good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) "requires that counsel converse, confer, compare views, consult and deliberate." Williams v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., 192 F.R.D. 698, 700 (D. Kan. 2000) (finding that a single letter between counsel addressing a discovery dispute does not satisfy the duty to confer). The requirement to meet-and-confer must be taken seriously, because "[b]efore the court can rule on a motion, the parties must demonstrate they acted in good faith to resolve the issue among themselves." See Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Naviant Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. Larry Tucker, Inc., 339 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Here, it is immediately apparent that Defendant's motion is inadequate because it does not include the good faith certification Local Rule 37.1(a) requires, reciting in a separate document the date, time, and place of counsels' conferences and the names of all the persons who participated. Moreover, Defendant's motion hardly demonstrates that its counsel has met his duty to confer, since his efforts amounted to merely a single letter to Plaintiff's counsel and a brief telephone conversation with an unspecified individual at "Plaintiff's counsel's law office". (Mot. to Compel ¶ 3.) See, e.g., Pinkham v. Gen. Prods. Corp., No. 1:07-CV-174, 2007 WL 4285376, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 3, 2007) (finding that counsel's five letters were "standing alone, insufficient to suggest that they amount to a conference or that a real conference would be futile") (citing Williams, 192 F.R.D. at 700). Consequently, the motion to compel will be denied for failing to comply with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons provided, Defendant Whitley County Council's Motion to Compel (Docket # 47) is hereby DENIED. The motion can be renewed, if necessary, after counsel conduct a conference, or the Defendant properly shows that a conference was attempted.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Shoppell v. Schrader

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
Aug 13, 2009
CAUSE NO. 1:08-CV-284 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 13, 2009)

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Hinchman v. Gen. Motors

finding that the defendant's single letter and brief telephone conversation with someone at the law office of plaintiff's counsel was insufficient

Summary of this case from Thornton v. Lashbrook

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Birchrea Partners, Inc. v. Regent Bank

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Data Research & Handling Inc. v. Vongphachanh

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc.

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc.

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Fields v. Folk

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Carrols, LLC v. All-Am. Foods, Inc.

finding no good-faith effort where counsel's efforts to confer amounted to only a single letter to opposing counsel and a brief telephone conversation

Summary of this case from Mut. Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Indus.

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Thompson v. City of Fort Wayne

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Busbee v. Lewis

finding good faith certification of a single letter and a brief telephone conversa- tion inadequate

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Mercy

finding good faith certification of a single letter and a brief telephone conversation inadequate

Summary of this case from Marshall v. GE Marshall, Inc.

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Menendez v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Centurion Indus. Inc. v. Harrington Benefit Servs. Inc.

finding good faith certification of a single letter and a brief telephone conversation inadequate

Summary of this case from Heavilin v. Madison Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

finding certification inadequate when efforts were one letter and a brief phone conversation with an unspecified individual at opposing counsel's firm

Summary of this case from Romary Associates, Inc. v. Kibbi LLC (N.D.Ind. 9-8-2011)

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Hartford v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

finding good faith certification of a single letter and a brief telephone conversation inadequate

Summary of this case from Monroe v. Sisters of Saint Francis Health Services

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Europe v. Forks RV

finding that a telephone call and a letter was not a good faith conference

Summary of this case from Imbody v. C R Plating Corp.
Case details for

Shoppell v. Schrader

Case Details

Full title:LEANNE C. SHOPPELL, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LARRY E…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Aug 13, 2009

Citations

CAUSE NO. 1:08-CV-284 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 13, 2009)

Citing Cases

Winger v. Jeffreys

Second, other than sending a single letter to Defense Counsel for Dr. Newbold and Asselmeier, Winger has not…

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc.

But as the Court previously explained in this suit (DE 262 at 2), "two emails . . . [typically] do not…