Opinion
No. CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA.
January 12, 2011
ORDER
This matter arises on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Eduardo Merino to Appear for Deposition. (Doc. 80) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice.
Despite several written warnings to Plaintiffs that they must comply with the Local Rules, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel fail to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j), Rules of Practice, effective December 1, 2010, and Rule 37(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. ("[T]he motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action."). These rules mandate moving counsel to attach a certification that "after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so," counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter. Plaintiffs' counsel provides no affidavit or certification signed under penalty of perjury detailing his good faith attempts with opposing counsel to resolve the discovery dispute prior to seeking a judicial resolution of the issue. Personal consultation requires either face-to-face communication or telephone communication. Letters, faxes and e-mails are insufficient. Hart v. Agnos, 2008 WL 2008966, *7 (D.Ariz. 2008) and IMA North American, Inc. V. Marlyn Nutraceutical, Inc., 2007 WL 2391009, * 1 n. 1 (D.Ariz. 2007).
The Ninth Circuit has "[e]xplain[ed], yet again, the importance of following a district court's local rules. `District courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules.'" Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Eduardo Merino to Appear for Deposition, doc. 80, is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2011.