Opinion
4:23-cv-38 (CDL)
11-22-2023
ROWENA DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. d/b/a DOLLAR TREE and JOHN DOES #1-3, Defendants.
ORDER
CLAY D. LAND, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Rowena Daniels asserts that Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. did not timely respond to her discovery requests. After discovery closed and after Dollar Tree filed a summary judgment motion, Daniels filed a motion to compel Dollar Tree's responses. In the same motion, Daniels moves to strike Dollar Tree's answer, defenses, and summary judgment motion as a sanction for Dollar Tree's failure to respond. Daniels's motion (ECF No. 13) is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that motions to compel “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with the party who has failed to provide discovery. Further, this Court's Rules 16 and 26 Order requires that counsel for the parties meet “in person” and attempt in good faith to resolve any discovery dispute before seeking a motion to compel. Rules 16 and 26 Order 8, ECF No. 4. “In person” is defined as “physically present in the same room and does not include virtual or remote presence.” Id.
Here, Daniels's counsel corresponded with Dollar Tree's counsel about this dispute via email and a letter. But Daniels presented no evidence that her counsel attempted to meet in person with opposing counsel to resolve this dispute. Without such a certification, Daniels's motion is premature and denied. Accordingly, the Court declines to impose the sanctions sought by Daniels at this time. In the meantime, it appears that Defendant has responded to the discovery requests, and the Court finds that discovery should not be reopened.
The Court does excuse Daniels' failure to timely respond to the Defendant's summary judgment motion and directs that Daniels shall respond to Dollar Tree's summary judgment motion by December 19, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED