Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 07-383-RET-DLD.
October 15, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the court on a referral from the district court on pro se plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery responses, filed herein on August 6, 2008. (rec. doc. 19). The motion is opposed.
On May 28, 2008, plaintiff served interrogatories and a request for production of documents upon defendant. On July 8, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant's responses. On July 10, 2008, the date of the initial scheduling conference, the motion to compel was denied as premature, as parties may not conduct discovery prior to a discovery conference. See Rules 26(d) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When the parties met for the initial scheduling conference on July 10, 2008, defendant was advised that as of this date, it now had a duty to respond to the discovery requests in a timely manner.
On August 6, 2008, plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting that the defendant respond or "face sanctions." (rec. doc. 19). The court notes that the motion lacked a good faith certification that the plaintiff conferred, or attempted to confer, with the defendant in an effort to obtain the responses without court action. See Rule 37(d), F.R.C.P. On August 11, 2008, defendant opposed the motion to compel, stating that it had mailed timely responses on August 5, 2008, and that if plaintiff had conferred with defendant prior to filing the motion to compel, she would have known that the responses were already on their way to her, and would be received within thirty (30) days of the initial scheduling conference. Plaintiff's motion was premature in that it was filed before defendant's 30-day deadline to respond had passed; and, in any case, is moot in that she was in possession of the formal responses within the 30-day time period.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED.