Hill v. DeJoy

Full title: VELMA HILL, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 22, 2020

No. 4:19-CV-345 RLW (E.D. Mo. Sep. 22, 2020)

Opinion

No. 4:19-CV-345 RLW No. 4:19-CV-1315 RLW

09-22-2020

VELMA HILL, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, Defendant.

RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Production Requests. (ECF No. 35.)

Eastern District Local Rule 3.04(A) provides with respect to motions concerning discovery and disclosure:

The Court will not consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless it contains a statement that movant's counsel has conferred in person or by telephone with the opposing counsel in good faith or has made reasonable efforts to do so, but that after sincere efforts to resolve their dispute, counsel are unable to reach an accord. This statement also shall recite the date, time and manner of such conference, and the names of the individuals participating therein, or shall state with specificity the efforts made to confer with opposing counsel.

E.D. Mo. L.R. 3.04(A) (emphasis added).

Defendant's motion is accompanied by a certificate detailing the extensive correspondence defense counsel and plaintiff have exchanged with regard to the production requests. There is nothing in the certificate to suggest, however, that defense counsel made a reasonable effort to confer in person or by telephone with plaintiff. The local rule requires a conference in person or by telephone, along with details concerning the conference, or a statement of the reasonable efforts made to confer in person or by telephone. The rule's requirements apply to pro se parties such as plaintiff, as well as to attorneys. The sending of correspondence, though emails and U.S. Mail, is insufficient to constitute a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute under the local rule.

As a result of Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule 3.04(A), the Court will not consider the instant motion and will deny the same without prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Production Requests is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 35]

/s/ _________

RONNIE L. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2020.