Free Order on Motion for Hearing - 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 (#105 at 3.) The parties have apparently not conferred "in good faith, in person or by telephone" to attempt to resolve the dispute. Although Plaintiff asserts that he requested a telephone conference with defense counsel, he did so only on January 28, 2008, just four days before submitting the instant motion. That is not the kind of good faith effort to resolve discovery
Document 1181 - Filed 02/07/2008 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Timothy Lee Ward, Plaintiff -vsCarr, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2159-PHX-ROS (JI) ORDER

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion for Telephonic Conference, filed February 4, 2008 (#115). Plaintiff seeks a discovery conference with the court to resolve discovery disputes. 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 Court's Scheduling Order, filed December 18, 2007, provides: 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 bringing 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 such motion will generally result in the motion being stricken.

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

disputes which the Court's Order and the rules require. In the event defense counsel fails to arrange a telephonic conference with Plaintiff within a reasonable of time, Plaintiff may request that the Court order such a conference, and resubmit the instant request. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Telephonic Conference, filed February 4, 2008 (#115) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: February 7, 2008
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2159-115o Order 08 02 05 re MDiscConf.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

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 1182 - Filed 02/07/2008 Page 2 of 2