Opinion
Case No. 3:10-cv-1000-J-20MCR.
February 23, 2011
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 9) filed January 31, 2011. On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a response arguing that Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) and suggesting that the issue could be resolved without Court involvement. See (Doc. 12). Therefore, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice at this time.
On February 22, 2011, Defendant filed an objection to Plaintiff's response. (Doc. 13).
The importance of the Local Rules cannot be overstated. All counsel are expected to be familiar with and comply with all applicable rules of this Court. The purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) "is to require the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention." Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The term "communicate" has been further clarified to mean, "to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues." Davis v. Apfel, 2000 WL 1658575 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The Court will not hesitate to impose sanction upon either party for failure to comply with the Local Rules.
The Court directs counsel to confer in a good faith attempt to resolve this issue and if the attorneys are unable to do so, Defendant shall file a renewed motion to compel no later than Wednesday, March 9, 2011. The Court sincerely hopes the attorneys will be able to resolve this type of discovery dispute without Court intervention.
The Court finds that neither party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs at this time. See e.g., Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 9) is DENIED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 23rd day of February, 2011.