Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 1541 - Filed 05/13/2008 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Timothy Lee Ward, Plaintiff -vsKarr, et al., Defendants CV-03-2159-PHX-ROS (JRI) ORDER

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion for Court Intervention, filed May 8, 2008 (#151). Plaintiff's motion is in the nature of a motion to compel Defendants to respond to outstanding discovery requests. Although briefing on the motion is not complete, the Court finds that further briefing is not necessary to a fair adjudication of the motion. The scheduling Order entered in this matter on December 18, 2007 (#105) provides the following restrictions on discovery motions: 3.1 The court will not entertain motions to compel discovery or disclosure, motions for sanctions, motions for protective orders, or the like unless and until there has been compliance with the following procedure. Prior to brining any such motions, the parties must: (a) Confer in good faith, in person, or by telephone, and attempt to resolve the dispute. Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). (b) If the dispute remains unresolved, the parties must arrange and participate in a telephonic conference with the undersigned judge. To do so, either party may submit a request specifying the results of the conference between the parties and the matters remaining in dispute. Failure to comply with this procedure prior to filing a discovery motion will generally result in the motion being stricken. In this instance, the parties apparently have not conferred "in good faith, in person or by telephone." Nor has Plaintiff sought a telephone conference with the Court to resolve this matter. Finally, Plaintiff fails to include the certificate of good faith efforts mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). As such, Plaintiff's motion does not meet the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

criteria required for consideration of a motion to compel. Plaintiff has previously been cautioned about these requirements. (See Order 2/7/08, #118.) Future failures to comply with the prerequisites for discovery related motions may result in denial of such motions with prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Court Intervention, filed May 8, 2008 (#151) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: May 13, 2008
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2159-151o Order 08 05 12 re MCompel.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 1542 - Filed 05/13/2008 Page 2 of 2