ORDER AND REASONS

KAREN WELLS ROBY, United States Magistrate Judge

On August 21, 2002, the defendant, United States of America, filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and for Reasonable Sanctions (doc. #65) requesting an order compelling the plaintiffs to respond completely to the Interrogatories and Request for Production propounded on July 10, 2002. The plaintiff opposes the motion.

I. Background

This suit arises out of injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, Kelli Larkin, during a softball game sponsored by the United States Department of the Navy. On May 21, 1999, Kelli Larkin attended a softball game played on Navy property. She claims that during the softball game, David Campbell ("Campbell"), an employee of the Navy, negligently threw a baseball bat which struck her in the face. As a result of being struck, she claims to have suffered severe facial fractures, impairment of vision, cosmetic disfigurement, facial lacerations, depression, and severe pain and anguish. Kelli Larkin's husband, Joseph Larkin, and her son, Austin Larkin, have filed consortium claims.

The government propounded its first set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon the plaintiff on July 10, 2002. After having not received any responses from the plaintiff, the government contends that it initiated a telephone conference with the plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 37.1B. During the conference, counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that they would provide responses by August 15, 2002, except for several documents that would be provided following a meeting with their clients.

The plaintiffs provided its responses to the discovery requests on August 20, 2002. However, the United States contends that a number of the responses provided by the plaintiffs were incomplete, inadequate and evasive. The following day, the government faxed the plaintiffs a letter requesting that they supplement their responses by that afternoon. The fax also indicated that if such supplementation was not received by that afternoon, the government would file a Motion to Compel.

Because the plaintiffs failed to supplement their responses within the time requested, the United States filed the instant motion claiming that the responses provided by the plaintiffs were untimely, unfair, evasive and inappropriate. The government requests that this Court order the plaintiffs to provide complete and full responses to its discovery requests. It also requests that it be awarded reasonable attorney's fees incurred in connection with this motion.

The plaintiffs oppose the motion contending that because counsel for the government failed to hold a conference pursuant to Local Rule 37.1E, its motion is premature and should be dismissed. The plaintiffs contend that they have no problem discussing their responses to the discovery requests with the government. They also contend that such conference is necessary because the government has only indicated that it has "a problem" with the plaintiffs' responses and has failed to provide any further explanation. The plaintiffs, nonetheless, contend that the responses they have provided are adequate. They contend that any information the government needs was previously provided when they forwarded all information pertaining to their administrative claim.

II Analysis A. Local Rule 37.1E

The plaintiffs contend that the instant motion should be dismissed because counsel for the government did not attempt to resolve the issues raised in the instant motion pursuant to Local Rule 37.1E. Local Rule 37.1E provides:

No motion relative to discovery shall be accepted for filing unless accompanied by a certificate of counsel for the moving party stating that counsel have conferred in person or by telephone for purposes of amicably resolving the issues and stating why they are unable to agree or stating that opposing counsel has refused to so confer after reasonable notice. Counsel for the moving party shall arrange the conference. Any motion filed under this paragraph shall be noticed for hearing. If the court finds that opposing counsel has willfully refused to meet and confer, or, having met, willfully refused or failed to confer in good faith, the court may impose such sanctions as it deems proper.

After reviewing the Local Rule 37.1 Certificate submitted by the United States, the Court finds that the government failed to attempt to resolve the instant dispute in compliance with Local Rule 37.1E. In its Local Rule 37.1E Certificate, the United States indicates that a conference was held on August 14, 2002 to discuss the plaintiffs' supplementation of their responses. The Certificate states that on August 20, 2002, the United States received what it considered to be inadequate responses and that after receiving the plaintiffs' responses, it contacted the plaintiffs via fax on August 21, 2002, to allow them an opportunity to supplement their responses. The Court finds, however, that the opportunity provided by the government was woefully inadequate and violates the spirit and purpose of the rule.

The record indicates that the fax was submitted to the plaintiffs on August 21, 2002 at 12:50 p.m. While the note indicates that the plaintiffs' responses were inadequate and that "a problem" existed with a number of the responses, it fails to detail how each response was inadequate. Furthermore, the government only provided the plaintiffs with three and one-half hours to supplement their responses at which point it would file a Motion to Compel and seek attorneys fees and costs.

The Court finds that the attempt to secure a resolution was only a surface attempt without the true intent to accomplish the objectives contemplated by the rule as three and one-half hours to cure a deficiency in discovery responses surely is not reasonable. Finally, the Court finds that in addition to the defects in the Rule 37.1E Certificate, the motion as submitted to the Court for review is also inadequate. Just as the government failed to inform the plaintiffs why it believed each response that is the subject of the motion is inadequate, it failed to provide an explanation to the Court. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied.

B. Attorney's Fees and Expenses

The government's request for attorney's fees is also denied as the Motion on its face fails to present good cause for the relief sought as required by Rule 37(a)(4)(A) The Court finds, however, that an award for the plaintiffs is warranted pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(B) for the reasonable expenses incurred in having to respond to the government's motion.

Rule 37(a)(4)(B) provides:

If the motion is denied, the court may enter any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the moving party or the attorney filing the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(B).

The Court finds that because the government failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1E prior to filing the instant motion and because it has failed to provide the Court with any substantive explanation as to why the plaintiffs' responses are inadequate, the motion was filed without good cause and was not substantially justified.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery and for Reasonable Sanctions (doc. #65) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the plaintiffs seek to recover attorneys fees incurred in defending against the instant motion, it is to submit the appropriate documentation in compliance with Local Rule 54.2 no later than October 31, 2002. A ruling on the attorney's fee issue is deferred until November 6, 2002.