Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-cv-00270-WDM-BNB.
October 12, 2005
ORDER
This matter is before me on the Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Compelling [sic] Discovery Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c): (the "Motion"), filed August 10, 2005. The plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defendants to produce certain documents in response to a request for production of documents. He further seeks sanctions against the defendant in the amount of $!,000.00 for failing to produce the documents.
The request for production is not attached to the Motion, nor does the plaintiff set forth verbatim his requests and the defendants' responses to those requests. Local rule of practice 37.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, specifies the form of discovery motions as follows:
A motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 or 37 directed to interrogatories or requests under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 or 34 or to responses thereto shall set forth verbatim the interrogatory, request, and response to which the motion is directed.
This is an important requirement. I cannot rule on a motion to compel in an informed manner unless I know precisely what was asked for in the disputed discovery and precisely what the response to the request was. The importance of the local rule is made clear in this case, where the defendant asserts that it has twice contacted the plaintiff in an attempt to understand his discovery concerns.
The defendant further asserts that it is conducting a reasonable search to identify and produce responsive documents.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED.