Opinion
Civil Action 20-355-JWD-SDJ
01-18-2022
PAUL TRIMBLE v. ADAM STRENGTH, et al.
ORDER
SCOTT D. JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 102) filed by Plaintiff, Paul Trimble (“Plaintiff”), on December 6, 2021. In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks discovery responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production propounded on Defendants Adam Strength (“Strength”) and Siding with Strength, Inc. (“Siding with Strength”). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks responses both to Interrogatories and Requests for Production propounded on October 15, 2020 to Strength and to Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production propounded on April 13, 2021, to Siding with Strength. In their Opposition to this Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 108), Strength and Siding with Strength explain the delay and confusion caused by “'musical chairs' of attorneys along with similarly named and commonly owned entities” and unequivocally assert that both Defendants “have now answered all of the outstanding discovery including the first and second sets.” Copies of those responses, absent produced documents, accompany the Opposition.
R. Doc. 102 at 1.
Id.
R. Doc. 108 at 1.
R. Docs. 108-1 and 108-2.
Given the production of all of the requested discovery, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel without prejudice, subject to refiling should any response remain deficient.
However, prior to any such motion being filed, the Parties are instructed to confer in good faith pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and are strongly encouraged to resolve any potential future discovery disputes without Court intervention. See Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 11-505, 2012 WL 12878606, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2012) (regarding discovery matters, “[n]either side should seek determinations from this Court, except as a last resort”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 102) filed by Plaintiff, Paul Trimble, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.