Opinion
Case No.: 8:05-CV-160-17MAP.
August 4, 2006
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Document Production and Interrogatory Answers (doc. 23) and Defendant's response thereto (doc. 45). The Court justifiably expects counsel to meaningfully discuss their differences with the opposing side before seeking appropriate relief. One year after receiving Defendant's discovery responses and five days before the close of the discovery period, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant complaining its responses were deficient and demanding that Defendant respond within five days. Such efforts to resolve discovery disputes are contrary to the spirit of Local Rule 3.01(g). See Local Rule 3.01(g) (party must certify he has in good faith conferred with affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute and narrow the issues before the Court prior to filing motion to compel).
Plaintiff has withdrawn its motion with regard to request for production 8, interrogatory 5(b), and the portion of interrogatory 5(f) directed to sales of products accused of infringement. As to request for production 30, Defendant states it has no additional documents responsive to the request. As to interrogatory 5(a), Defendant's objections are well-taken. As to interrogatory 5(c), Defendant states it has already produced the responsive documents concerning "total volume of sales." As to interrogatory 5(e) and the remaining portion of interrogatory 5(f), Defendant's objections are well-taken. As to interrogatory 7, Defendant has agreed to look again for responsive documents. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Document Production and Interrogatory Answers (doc. 23) is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.